In the April 2023 General Conference, Elder Allen D. Haynie emphasized the need to follow the prophet without equivocation, declaring emphatically “We are never spiritually at risk in following prophetic counsel” Elder Haynie was echoing a concept that has been taught by Latter-day Saint leaders many times before. President Wilford Woodruff exclaimed that: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”; emphasis added). Harold B. Lee similarly taught “you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 533).

This is an extremely comforting idea. If it is true, then we do not need to worry about where to turn for truth. We can trust implicitly everything that is taught over the pulpit. We can be confident that if we apply what we are taught, that we will draw closer to God. When what is taught seems in tension with what is said in the Bible, then we can confidently rely on what is taught over what is written. We can rely on what is taught even if it contradicts our “political views,” “social views,” or “social life” as Church President Harold B. Lee counseled.

But what if Prophets and Apostles get things wrong? What if the history of the Church shows that in fact they have frequently taught inconsistent doctrine over the pulpit about core topics such as the nature of God and what we need to do to be saved? I would suggest that having highly falible individuals that are considered to speak for God would be a significant burden and a curse rather than a blessing .

When we look back at Church history this is exactly what we see specifically on the nature of the Godhead. Joseph Smith early on seemed to adopt a modalist (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are different manifestations or roles for one God) or trinitarian view of the Godhead (and to alternate between them somewhat inconsistently). There are passages in the Book of Mormon that seem modalist in nature that Joseph Smith later went back and updated to remove that and make them seem more triniatarian/consistent with the Godhead. Later the Lectures on Faith (which was the Doctrine part of the Doctrine & Covenants until it was removed from the D&C in 1921) describe two persons in the Godhead with God the Father not having a physical body and with the Holy Ghost as an impersonal force. Joseph later embraces a multiplicity of Gods in his famous King Follett discourse where he emphasizes that God was once a man like us and that he also has a father God. 

Brigham Young the next Prophet repeatedly and forcefully taught that Adam was the God of this world and the father of our spirits including the Spirit of Jesus Christ (whom he did not identify as the same as Jehovah). He declared that this was a truth “which God revealed to me,” and that the willingness of members to accept his teaching “will prove their salvation or damnation.” He also incorporated this doctrine into the lecture at the veil that was part of the endowment ceremony of the temple. Church leaders declared that since the Prophet had spoken this must be the will of God. And Orson Hyde a member of the Quorum of the Twelve was threatened that he would be removed from the quorum if he would not back down in his opposition to the doctrine. You can read all of the related documents here.

But today this doctrine is repudiated as completely and totally false. Indeed, it was one of Bruce R. McConkie’s “Seven Deadly Heresies” The best case scenario is that the Prophet of God was catastrophically wrong about the nature of God but that this heresy did not gain popularity and so luckily we do not believe it today. But what if it would have stuck? It is entirely possible we would be defending it as divine revelation until today because the Prophet said so just as we defend Joseph Smith’s more radical teachings and just as we defended Brigham Young’s racist policies as doctrinal for more than a hundred years (more on that soon). 

So contrary to what Presidents Woodruff and Lee taught, it is possible for the prophet to lead people astray and for God to not remove them from office for decades but to allow the error to continue to be taught and even incorporated into the Church’s most sacred rituals. 

I used to shrug this off as not a big deal. Over time I figured that God would correct falsehood and truth would prevail in his Church. But recently it finally hit me that this means that many members of the Church believed not only falsehood but outright damnable heresy and that they did so because they were misled by those that they sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. 

Church sources attest that getting something like the nature of God wrong isn’t just a minor derivation from truth, but a matter of eternal salvation. 

The aforementioned Lectures on Faith states that “three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, The idea that he actually exists. Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes. Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will.” 

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie similarly warned: “There is no salvation in believing any false doctrine, particularly a false or unwise view about the Godhead or any of its members. Eternal life is reserved for those who know God and the One whom he sent to work out the infinite and eternal atonement. True and saving worship is found only among those who know the truth about God and the Godhead and who understand the true relationship men should have with each member of that Eternal Presidency. It follows that the devil would rather spread false doctrine about God and the Godhead, and induce false feelings with reference to any one of them, than almost any other thing he could do.”

In other words, getting the nature of God wrong is a really really big deal. But those who followed Brigham Young’s repeated over the pulpit teachings would have embraced a lie that would have destroyed their ability to engage in “[t]rue and saving worship.” In other words, contra Elder Haynie it is entirely possible to be put into spiritual risk in following prophetic counsel and embracing falsehoods.

As I have reflected on the possibility of being led by highly fallible “prophets” who get matters of doctrinal importance routinely wrong, I have realized that it may be hard to imagine a worse spiritual state to be in. False prophets who falsely declare lies can mislead not only individuals but whole generations into heresy. These false teachings get taught as official doctrines and are defended even decades after they are repudiated or forgotten. It is very very difficult to correct false teachings when they are presented as the authoritative word of God. 

We need only look back at LDS Church history to see the pernicious impact of false doctrines taught over the pulpit. Brigham Young introduced a priesthood ban that LDS Church leaders today admit had no basis in the teachings of Joseph Smith or the Bible. Brigham Young and other Church leaders attributed this ban to a curse on Cain and later to a lack of valiance in the premortal world. These false doctrines took a life of their own. Church leaders assumed that these teachings were inspired and came from Joseph Smith. They taught them over the pulpit and in personal correspondence as divine truth. And as a result racist and false teachings were defended and advanced for decades. Many members took these teachings as authoritative truth and this adversely shaped the attitudes of members towards the civil rights movement. Rather than leading the way on racial integration as Joseph Smith had done, the LDS Church lagged behind and defended racism as God’s will, It took a “revelation” to overturn the ban and the negative consequences of that history of racism are still felt in the Church today.

We see the same pattern of false and unbiblical teachings offered up as the inspired word of God in other traditions such as Roman Catholicism. Accretions such as the veneration of icons or the miraculous conception, perpetual virginity, and assumption of Mary become solidified over time and nearly impossible to correct. False doctrine is engrained and revered as tradition. I used to think that this was exactly why a restoration was needed. But our track record over just 200 years is similarly abysmal.

To my Latter-day Saint friends, I invite you to consider the scary possibility that those who claim to speak for God are getting it wrong not just on minor matters of policy but on core truths related to the nature of God or what we need to do to be saved. History shows that they have done so, and it is highly likely that they are doing so again right now. 

Elder Haynie’s talk supports a concept that I have heard friends embrace: that if we follow the Prophet we will be excused from negative consequences if we get doctrines wrong. This is a pernicious and unscriptural lie. We have been given the word of God in the Bible with sufficient plainness that we can discern truth. And we have been commanded to test those who claim to be prophets and apostles and to weigh their words against what God has revealed. We have the obligation to be like the Bereans, a group of people in the Book of Acts, who when taught by Paul and other Christians missionaries “searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11). God will not excuse us for failing to diligently study his word for ourselves to test whether so-called prophets and apostles are truly speaking for God. 

It would be great to have an authoritative source to look to for definitive teachings from Jesus Christ. Without someone who speaks for the Lord, there is a lot more individual responsibility to carefully and thoughtfully study the Bible. It is a lot easier to defer to those who claim to speak for God. But when we do so we put our eternal destiny in the hands of men who have repeatedly gotten it wrong and who may be leading us astray even today.