Watchmen on the Tower – On the Limits of Prophetic Fallibility

Desert_View_Watchtower

Desert View Watchtower photo by Talie

Some of the responses to my recent post about rejecting living prophets by following future prophets have predictably raised the issue of prophetic fallibility.

Among those members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have decided to publicly oppose the apostles and prophets of the church, prophetic fallibility is almost invariably invoked to justify their rejection of the policy or teaching they find objectionable. It’s their catch-all defense for disobedience.

Question: How can you, a believer, reject the words of the prophets of God on this matter?
Answer: Because of Prophetic Fallibility. Q.E.D.

It is absolutely true that the church does not believe that its prophets and apostles are infallible. There is no infallibility doctrine. The prophets are undeniably human beings and subject to normal human error. That fallibility provides a helpful framework for understanding some of the complex parts of the history of the church.

But often these appeals to prophetic fallibility represent simplistic and sloppy reasoning. It’s used as a shortcut argument; a presumed trump card, invoked without careful thought or consistent application. And while fallibility may be appropriately cited, it must be done with circumspection and great precision, not with reckless, albeit convenient abandon. Because prophetic fallibility has natural logical limits and is a matter of grave consequence.

The whole point of having a prophet in the first place is that a prophet is a metaphorical “watchman on the tower”. While his eyesight may be just as fallible as anyone else, the tower upon which he stands provides him with a view superior to those with equally good eyes but who are not situated upon the tower. His view is better not because his eyes are superior but because his location on the tower allows him to see farther and more; not because of something inherent or different in his person, but because of something inherent in the position in which he has been placed for the protection and benefit of all.

There is a limit to how fallible a prophet can be and still rightly be called a prophet. At some point claims of prophetic fallibility make a prophet SO fallible that it amounts to saying that that the watchman is not actually on the tower at all! Or otherwise that his fallibility is so great that the natural advantage afforded by the tower is completely nullified; in which case they are claiming not only ordinary fallibility, but extraordinary fallibility because if the watchman suffered from only ordinary fallibility his position on the tower would still be superior to those on the ground– they proclaim not that he has average eyesight then, but that he is nearly blind!

The church doesn’t have a doctrine of prophetic infallibility but it does have a doctrine of living prophets and apostles.

While those who appeal to prophetic fallibility are constantly ready to call out anyone who appears to imply the prophets are infallible (that unattainable upper boundary), they often show little awareness or respect for this lower boundary, which if crossed makes the doctrine of prophets and apostles itself incoherent.

To complicate the matter for those who wish to appeal to fallibility, the church is not led by just one watchman on the tower, but by 15 men who profess to be prophets, seers, and revelators who regularly claim to be guided through revelation from God in guiding the church.

The watchman on the tower metaphor is again instructive here. One watchman has a superior view to those who are not on the tower, but still may make mistakes attributable to normal human error. Those errors can be mitigated and minimized, however, by requiring that what he sees be confirmed by additional watchmen, similarly set on towers of defense. If one raises a warning cry, his warning should not be cavalierly ignored though wrong he may be. If seven of the fifteen raise the same warning, we should be loath to reject their warning simply because we cannot perceive the danger that they profess to see. And if all fifteen of the watchmen raise the warning in unanimity, then it would be a very serious thing indeed to declare to your fellows that you know that they are wrong and that they should be ignored or even resisted.

Now, all metaphors have their limits, and we ought not take the analogy beyond its applicability, but it is a very valuable image to help us understand how the church leadership is structured and the kind of protection it affords.

The Presiding High Priest of the Church, his Councillors, and Council of the Twelve Apostles guide the church through careful deliberation and unanimous decision. Here is a must-watch video of an excellent explanation of the process by Elder Henry B. Eyring, an Apostle:

Video: Elder Henry B. Eyring [start at 0:45s]

So appeals to prophetic fallibility must account for whether the thing which is believed to be in error has been taught by just one or two of the prophets or apostles or many of the prophets and apostles; taught repeatedly by past prophets as well as current ones or taught unanimously by the living prophets and apostles.

It is far more acceptable to cite fallibility to disagree with an idiosyncratic idea promoted by a singular apostle, or even a couple of apostles or prophets, than it is to disagree with a doctrine that has been promoted repeatedly by multiple prophets and apostles or a decision which was made by the prophets and apostles in unanimity.

And it is truly a serious matter to publicly contradict or wrest a relatively rare joint proclamation by the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles, signed in unanimity and offered to the world.

And yet most appeals to prophetic fallibility are lazily made without any regard for these crucial distinctions and risk thereby becoming de facto declarations that the prophets are not prophets at all.

Additionally we need to carefully differentiate between knowing WHAT God wants us to do, and WHY he wants us to do it. While there are revelations that are explanatory, which are the type we often see in canonized scripture, more often than not revelation tells us what we should do but not the reason why. So it isn’t enough to cite past mistakes made by the prophets and apostles, even in unanimity. We have to be precise about exactly how they were wrong.

Were they wrong about what the the Lord wanted them to do? Or where they only wrong about why he wanted them to do it?

Getting wrong the reasons why God wanted something done is inherently different and less serious than getting wrong what God wanted done.

When I was single, I dated a wonderful girl who I thought I would marry. One day I knelt to pray about what I should do to make the relationship work and the Holy Spirit told me very clearly that I needed to break up with her right then. I knew what I was supposed to do and I did it.

I immediately went to her and broke up. But in my mind I started looking for the reason why. I had friends who had broken up and their break up counter-intuitively acted as a catalyst for them to evaluate what they really wanted and they got back together and got married. I semi-consciously believed that was what would happen with us too.

But I was wrong. We didn’t get back together. Years later I look back and in hindsight I am so grateful that it didn’t work out as I wanted. I was wrong about the why, but right about what God wanted me to do.

Were the prophets and apostles wrong about the reasons why polygamy was practiced and why the priesthood was withheld from members of African descent? Yes. Without a doubt. Speculations that monogamy was bad and that polygamy the ideal were wrong. Justifications for the priesthood restriction based on speculation about the pre-mortal life or the curse of Cain were wrong.

But getting wrong the reasons why does not automatically mean that polygamy was therefore a mistake, nor even that the priesthood restriction was itself necessarily a mistake.

In connection with the appeal to fallibility, some have suggested that while authentic, revelation from God to the prophets is filtered through their fallible human minds and muddled by their personal prejudices, culture, and tradition. This is an attractive construction for anyone who feels to justify actions that are directly contrary to the directions of God through his prophets while still claiming to have a testimony that the prophets are true (after a fashion).

But on closer inspection, saying that the prophets cannot receive clear messages is really saying that God is not powerful enough to make his will known; it is not an expression of doubt in the prophets, but a veiled disbelief in a God who speaks.

A god who is unable to pierce the smog of human fallibility and make his will clear to even his own official human spokesmen is certainly not much of a god; perhaps he’s a mumbling god whose word is sharper than a blunted spoon (to the dividing asunder of both oatmeal and grits!).

But the God of the Restoration, who revealed himself to Joseph Smith– the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Nephi– is a God who speaks. It is true that he reveals his will line upon line and precept upon precept, but when it is revealed there is little doubt about what he requires at the time, even when the reasons why may not be comprehensible.

It seems reasonable to say that the limitations of our humanity make it difficult to understand or comprehend the reasons why. But if we believe in prophets at all then we have to believe that God can at least make what he wants us to do right now sufficiently clear. A God who speaks should at least be able to answer yes-or-no questions, even if the explanation of why is beyond our ken.

But if the prophets are unwilling or unable to hear the voice of the Lord, can they still be accurately called prophets? Not with coherence.

In the biblical story of Jonah, who is the archetypal fallible prophet, Jonah never has any confusion about what God wants him to do, even if he rejects the message initially. And when he finally submits, he does not really understand why, or accept that the people of Nineveh will actually repent. His fallibility lies not in knowing God’s will but in resisting it and misapprehending to what end he has been asked to act.

Another example of prophetic fallibility from the restoration is the loss of the first 116 pages translated from the gold plates. But even in this case the will of the Lord was not hazy or ambiguous. Martin Harris didn’t accept the clear message received after the first inquiry and he convinced the inexperienced prophet Joseph to pester the Lord until God granted them their desires, to their own condemnation and the detriment of the church (though the Lord had long prepared other means to compensate for the loss).

If anything, the lost 116 pages is not a warning about the fallibility of revelation to human beings, but a warning to those who dislike or disagree with the directions delivered from God by the prophets. It is the same warning as the the bible teaches about the Israelites who requested a king of the prophet Samuel. Members of the church who disagree with the prophets on the issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, or some other thing, risk playing the part of Martin Harris in asking for additional revelation until the Lord relents and grants them according to their desires, to their own condemnation and the detriment of the church. The prophets likely learned their lesson from Joseph’s experience and wouldn’t make that same mistake. But have the members of the church learned?

This raises perhaps the central problem with appeals to prophetic fallibility. If God is capable of making his will known to you then why not to the prophets? And if his power to make his will known is limited by their human frailty why is it not limited by your own human frailty?

In other words, appeals to fallibility to defend disagreeing with the prophets almost always fail to account for how come that same fallibility principle does not call into question the ability of the one making the appeal to discern the will of God. Fallibility Boulevard is a two way street. Yet critics who cite prophetic fallibility rarely exhibit a self-awareness of the irrational asymmetry of their appeal. Their confidence that their own view is correct while the prophets are wrong because prophets are fallible is self-contradicting. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you!

And if fallibility were to be applied symmetrically it would still be problematic, because (returning to the watchman analogy) the idea that the critic and the prophet are equally likely to be wrong (because of fallibility) is implicitly a denial that the watchman is on a tower at all! Symmetrical fallibility inherently places both the critic and the watchman at the same level, on the ground. It assumes that there is no tower. In other words it is inherently a denial that the prophet is a prophet by denying that his vantage point affords him a superior view. All else being equal, there is safety in trusting the guy with the superior view; even if he may not get everything exactly right, he is far more likely to be right than you are.

That is why, while it may be a useful framework for understanding the past, the prophetic fallibility argument is nearly useless as a defense for rejecting prophetic counsel in the present or for the future. It can only ever be employed as an excuse, not a proof, because in so far as it casts doubt on the prophet, it casts an equal amount of doubt on the dissident. It is incapable of resolving the disagreement in favor of one or the other, and is at its root a de facto denial that the prophets have any kind of superior view.

Faith is trust. Faith is the ability to make the right decision with insufficient information. It’s doing the right thing without knowing for sure why it is the right decision.

In complex systems, cause and effect are not necessarily linear or proportional. What seems to our limited minds to be unquestionably good can have disastrous results in the aggregate. We use faith to make choices when we don’t have enough information to gauge the consequences; which is essentially always.

That is why we have to make decisions using the Holy Ghost, because we are not even really capable of successfully evaluating any but the most immediate consequences on our own. God defines success, not us. His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. He’s operating on a much higher level and he knows the end from the beginning.

That is what is so dangerous about definitive public declarations that this or that policy imposed by the prophets is or was wrong. Saying that you know that it was wrong is implicitly a declaration that you know that God did not command such a thing, or that you know that the purpose God had in mind was not accomplished. But how do you know?

That is the question that is almost always left unanswered whenever prophetic fallibility is cited to justify a public disagreement with the prophets. By what measure do you judge? And why is that measure less fallible than the 15 prophets, seers, and revelators who lead the church? Most attempts to answer that question are an implicit denial that the prophets are true prophets or else present an incoherent idea of what it means to be a prophet.

Some may suggest that the problem lies in the watchman-on-the-tower definition of prophet I am using here, and that the definition is wrong. But that approach has a fundamental flaw: the prophets themselves, from Joseph Smith onward, and throughout the scriptures, have repeatedly described themselves in these terms. They actively claim, as in the video of Elder Eyring above, that the they are the Lord’s spokesmen; that they are the Lord’s watchmen on the tower. They describe themselves as prophets, seers, and revelators and audaciously request that the membership sustain them as such regularly. They actively claim that God is leading the church through revelation to them ( See for example this recent conference sermon by Elder Christofferson who like Elder Eyring is one of the Twelve Apostles ). I have heard them do it personally in private meetings on multiple occasions as well as in public. They authorize Sunday school manuals that are used throughout the church which knowingly perpetuate that claim and they encourage children to sing “Follow the prophet, don’t go astray…” Do they claim infallibility. No. But they certainly claim to be prophets after the fashion described here. So if that definition of prophet is wrong, then they are most certainly not prophets, because they would be claiming to be something that they simply cannot be.

Joseph Smith reportedly taught: “I will give you a key that will never rust,—if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.”

A close look at the scriptures shows that there few instances of apostasy by the prophets themselves. Individual apostles have apostatized and the Doctrine and Covenants contains provisions for replacing the prophet should he sin. But throughout the scriptures, in nearly every case, it is the members who reject the word of the Lord delivered by His faithful prophets. Do prophets make mistakes in the scriptures? Undeniably. But the clear, overriding theme of the scriptures is that of the people rejecting the prophets. The message for us is clear. We should be far more concerned about us rejecting the prophets because it goes contrary to what we want or what society teaches than we should be about whether the prophets are leading us astray.

The consequences for declaring that the prophets have sinned when they are doing what the Lord has truly command them to do are quite dire:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.” – Doctrine and Covenants 121:16

Prudence and humility would suggest that those who believe in the prophets ought to be exceedingly hesitant to ever raise the cry that the prophets act contrary to the will of the Lord. Those who are not hesitant and flippantly throw around prophetic fallibility to excuse their actions expose themselves to the justifiable question of whether they really do believe, as the paragraphs above attempt to demonstrate.

For all of these reasons, many orthodox members of the church sense that often the way in which prophetic fallibility is invoked is an attack on their faith even if they don’t know exactly how or they are not able to articulate it in the detail presented here. Because it IS often used as an implicit attack on their faith: not because they necessarily believe that the prophets are infallible, but because they believe, with good reason, that the adjective “prophetic” puts real limits on the word “fallibility”.

To be clear, I have never said that good, faithful members cannot disagree with the leaders of the church on a whole number of things. We can and do. Especially on questions of why or how,  but even occasionally on questions of what (albeit with far more caution).

But that disagreement should be expressed privately to the authorities or delegated local leaders, and to the Lord directly through private personal prayer. Once we have a personal witness of the Holy Ghost that the church is true and its leaders are prophets, there should be a presumption that they are in fact following the Holy Spirit, that the watchmen are on a tower which affords them a superior view, that they have good reasons for what they do, that there is safety in their unanimity, and that a great deal of deference should be granted to their authority and stewardship.

There are appropriate ways to dissent and seek for change. As we privately consult with those in authority, we as well as they can move toward a more perfect understanding.

If we only follow the prophet when it happens to coincide with what we already believe then having a prophet is virtually meaningless. Why have a watchman on the tower if you are only going to listen to him when he tells you what you already believe and you ignore him when he tells you something you don’t like or believe?

As Jesus said to his Twelve Apostles:

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” John 15:18-20 [emphasis added]

We do have true prophets. God does guide his church through them. They are our spiritual watchmen on the towers. They are not perfect. But we should heed their warnings. We can trust them to lead us right even if it requires us to incur the displeasure and persecution of society.

Category: lds
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark: link

13 Responses to Watchmen on the Tower – On the Limits of Prophetic Fallibility

  1. Nathan000000

    I love the detail of your explanations on topics like this. Another point I like to remember is this: Sometimes people like to point out some change or shift, such as talking about an earlier teaching less and less. Many times they haven’t really stopped teaching the idea; the person is just projecting that.

    But assuming the person is correct that an idea is taught less nowadays. They frequently assume that it means the prophets were wrong on that matter, therefore they stopped talking about it. There’s a second possibility that rarely gets considered: the membership became unworthy or unprepared to hear such an idea taught. In other words, those earlier teachings are just as valid as before, albeit not as publicized or focused on.

    An example in the scriptures: Samuel choosing a king. That doesn’t mean all the earlier teachings about judges were wrong; it means the membership has hardened their hearts or adopted the world’s view to such an extent that they will no longer bear sound doctrine and the topic has to be quietly withdrawn until a later generation. Examples from modern times? Perhaps the early presidents’ teachings on educational systems, or freedom and laws. Other examples could be found.

    When I think I perceive a shift away from talking about a subject as much as prophets did in the past, I first question whether my observation is correct. And when I think it is, I try never to assume that it means the earlier teachings were wrong. Rather, I wonder if my generation has become too blinded to be able to bear hearing those teachings, and if there’s anything I can do to help us be more prepared to hear it again.

  2. Hey, thanks for linking to that press conference video of President Eyring, it’s really awesome to see him describe so perfectly something I already knew a little bit about from what I’d heard in other places.

  3. Love this quote! “…perhaps he’s a mumbling god whose word is sharper than a blunted spoon (to the dividing asunder of both oatmeal and grits!).”

    Regarding the what versus the why, Joseph Smith once taught, “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire” (Dean C. Jessee (editor), The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 507-509).

    Regarding resisting clear revelation, it is relevant that it seems Joseph resisted plural marriage for quite some time, until an angel appeared with a sword drawn and told him if he did not go forward, there would be consequences. This recalls the Jonah story. Joseph knew exactly what he needed to do, but resisted. (See http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/MISCFiles/JSKnewPMwasDifficult.html)

  4. Loved this post. Linked to it from my blog too. Your sentence toward the end: “But that disagreement should be expressed privately to the authorities or delegated local leaders, and to the Lord directly through private personal prayer.” reminded me of an excellent talk by Elder Oaks on criticism and how to manage it (as in one’s own) appropriately. Talk is here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

  5. Aaron B

    I expected to hate this post, but strangely, I didn’t. I think you’re mostly right to call out Mormon liberals (of which I am one) for lazily employing the “fallibility” concept to serve their particular interpretative ends much of the time.

    Without pretending to engage the bulk of what you’ve written right now, I’ll just share one thought. I think you — and others inclined to argue as you do here — could be much more successful in your efforts if the LDS Church leadership would more actively and openly address some of Mormonism’s problematic historical episodes, in its curriculum and elsewhere. (I know — like this hasn’t been said 10,000 times before, but still…). Imagine a world in which I could talk about the Adam-God concept in Sunday School — talk about it ACCURATELY — discuss how it seems to problematize traditional LDS ideas around prophetic leadership and the Mormon’s doctrinal record, brainstorm with the class about how to think about prophetic authority in light of this history, and most of the other members of the class knew what I was talking about. Sound crazy? Because the world I’m asking you to imagine is a world in which Mormon liberals’ arguments/assertions would seem less compelling and your arguments would find a larger, more sympathetic audience.

  6. I love this!
    Thank you also to Aaron B for your comment and Matthew Parks for the article by Elder Oaks – it was very edifying.

  7. In regards to this topic, I think that Elder Holland hit it out of the ball park with his talk this last General Conference. There will always be questions as we continue to learn and grow, but it’s important to “hold fast to what [we] already know and stand strong until additional knowledge comes.

  8. spiderlogic

    Overall, great work. I have but one caveat. “A god who is unable to pierce the smog of human fallibility and make his will clear to even his own official human spokesmen is certainly not much of a god; perhaps he’s a mumbling god whose word is sharper than a blunted spoon (to the dividing asunder of both oatmeal and grits!).” Though cleverly articulated, it goes too far. In D&C 1:24 God speaks about his ability/necessity to speak to his children in their weakness/language (meaning cultural linguistic heritage) that they might come to (not have) understanding. We, being western children of the Greek philosophers will be spoken to differently than will an Abraham era Hebrew. The metaphysics are wildly different. It is why the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, though passing through the same conduit, are written so differently.
    It seems that our conception of the Godhead is a good example of a Western problem. Consider the question Zeezrom poses to Amulek “Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?” Few Mormon westerners would give a “yes” response. Amulek responds: “Yea, he is the very Eternal Father…” It is valuable to understand and consider the philosophical baggage that we bring. As to God being able to clearly convey an idea, it will only happen as perfectly as our worldview will allow.

  9. J. Max Wilson

    Great observation, Spiderlogic. My point was that he can make what he wants us to _do_ clear even if the explanations as to why are beyond our ken (because of the very limitations you cite).

    I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

  10. I think this is a good blog article and I agree with every point. However, I feel like it did not truly address the revelations on racial equality with the priesthood or polygamy. The question is raised, leaving myself and perhaps other readers to expect a socratic response to your posed question. While this article addresses an important attitude to have, it does not resolves the discord that is brought up with these two events. I have read your articles on the revelation about the priesthood not just being a hammer for any agenda, and your point that the priesthood being shared with all men was a long anticipated event. Your articles are very effective at developing a specific idea or point. I guess what I’m looking for is an entry that synthesizes all of these points together so that in that one article there aren’t holes and gaps left unaddressed until another post. I hope I don’t sound critical. Its not my intention.

  11. @ David Benjamin Jeffs

    I think when we get hung up on needing explanations for this or that past policy, it negates our need for faith. I don’t pretend to know the why’s about blacks and women in the priesthood, SSM, or polygamy, but I have some theories. I like to try and explain it to myself, even do a little research, but still I fall back on it doesn’t matter why, only that it is, and I choose to Follow the Prophets, knowing they are more likely to lead and speak for the Lord than ANYONE else. I am confident, that if I am patient and endure to the end, all things will be revealed to me. I will have a giant “a-ha!” moment, and I’ll finally “get” it on the other side of the veil. I am satisfied to wait until then. In fact, many other things will take my interest, maybe even be resolved between now and then. I’m OK with it all.

  12. So thankful and happy to have found your blog. You have a way of expressing what needs to be said in a kind and level-headed way. I lack that ability and am thankful to you for using your talents to further God’s work. I have some friends who are currently studying Denver Snuffer (an apostate with a beef against current prophets) and I have found it very difficult to understand them and I just get angry, which is never good or helpful. Your thoughts and comments have been supremely helpful to me and I want to take time to express my thanks and gratitude! Keep up the good work. It is very needed! God Bless!

Leave a Reply

  • Log in to comment
  • Register for an account

Be sure you are familiar with the Comment Policy before commenting.

Anyone who wishes to comment here must register for a sixteensmallstones.org login or connect using their Facebook account. Registration is simple and fast.

Once you have activated your account, you must log in to post comments. The first time you comment will still be moderated, but once I have approved your first comment you should be able to continue to add additional comments on any article without further impediment as long as you are logged in.

Copyright © 2005-2014 J. Max Wilson. Some Rights Reserved.