FAIR

Racial Issues

If “All Are Alike Unto God,” Why Were Special Promises Reserved for Abraham’s Seed? (Gospel Doctrine Old Testament Lesson 7A)

by

Howard Lyon: I Am a Child of God. Children from many cultures “stand with Christ, bearing witness with him that they are children of God. [The children] look directly at the viewer confident in the joy they feel in the presence of their Savior.”
An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 7: The Abrahamic Covenant (Abraham 1:1-4; 2:1–11; Genesis 12:1-8; 17:1-9) (JBOTL07A).

Question: The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God.” Yet “Abraham received promises concerning his seed” that continue to this day. How do we reconcile the idea of the “chosenness” of the family of Abraham with the idea that “God is no respecter of persons”?

Summary: There is no conflict between the “chosenness” of Abraham’s family and the universality of the Father’s love. Every one who receives the Gospel becomes Abraham’s seed and will bless him as their father. In the beginning, God organized the human family according to a divine plan and timetable. “All … alike” would have the opportunity to “come unto him and partake of his goodness,” but to achieve that end God invited each willing soul to participate with Him in the effort. We made premortal covenants that put us in a partnership with our Heavenly Father. Individuals were to play their unique parts faithfully at the appointed time. Jesus Christ was chosen to become our Savior. Abraham and others — both men and women — also received specific assignments. Abraham’s seed was given the responsibility to bear a “ministry and Priesthood unto all nations.” Through the ministry and Priesthood of Abraham’s seed, “all mankind may be saved,” “through the Atonement of Christ” and “by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” The disorganization and confusion of the human family will come to an end; “it must be joined together, so that there [will] be a perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity.”

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL07A — If “All Are Alike Unto God,” Why Were Special Promises Reserved for Abraham’s Seed?

For a video supplement to this lesson explaining, among other interesting topics, why virtually everyone in our day is a descendant of Abraham, see the presentation by Ugo A. Perego “All Abraham’s Children: A Genetic Perspective,” given at the 2016 Science & Mormonism Symposium: Body, Brain, Mind & Spirit, which took place on 12 March 2016 in Orem, Utah. (http://interpreterfoundation.org/ugo-a-perego-all-abrahams-children-a-genetic-perspective-2/).

Was Noah Drunk or in a Vision? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 6B)

by

Noah in His Vineyard, Holkham Bible, ca. 1325-1350. Here we see an industrious Noah diligently tending his vineyard, in striking contrast to a later depiction in the same Bible chapter that features him in an inebriated stupor. Scholars have noted the odd inconsistency between these two scenes.

An Old Testament KnoWhy for Gospel Doctrine Lesson 6: “Noah … Prepared an Ark to the Saving of His House” (Moses 8:19-30; Genesis 6-9; 11:1-9) (JBOTL06B)

Question: In Genesis 6:9, Noah is described as “a just man and perfect in his generations,” a noble patriarch who, like Enoch, “walked with God.” However, the story of Noah finishes in a puzzling way. Immediately after Noah makes his covenant with God, his sons find him “drunken” and “uncovered within his tent.” Can these two opposing pictures of Noah be reconciled?

Summary: It is difficult to know whether this contradiction is the result of different traditions, textual misunderstanding, or the abbreviated nature of the biblical account. Some scholars even wonder whether there was a deliberate effort to defame or belittle the character of Noah. What seems certain is that the biblical author deliberately framed this sequel to Noah’s Creation and Garden story as a replay of the scene of the Adam and Eve’s Fall and consequent judgment in Eden. Most often the instigator of this “Fall” is seen to be Noah, who, it is reported, succumbed to the intoxicating influence of wine from his vineyard. However, it is significant that the scriptures omit any hint of wrongdoing by Noah and put all the blame on Ham and his son Canaan. In the admittedly tentative interpretation given in this article, I will discuss the possibility that Ham’s wrongdoing consisted in his having approached, without authorization, the inner curtains of the sacred tent where Noah was enwrapped in vision. Some ancient traditions viewed Ham’s actions as part of an effort to steal Noah’s priesthood garment and undermine his authority.

 

The full article may be found at the Interpreter Foundation website: KnoWhy OTL06B — Was Noah Drunk or in a Vision?

As a video supplement to this lesson with additional details and artwork not included in this article, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The Ark and the Tent: Temple Symbolism in the Story of Noah” on the YouTube Interpreter Foundation channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIfArfB54Mk ).

Book Review: An Introduction to the Book of Abraham

by

10% off at the FairMormon Bookstore

Publisher: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University and Deseret Book
Author: John Gee
Number of Pages: 197
Binding: Hardcover
ISBN-13: 978-1-9443-9406-6
Price: $19.99
Click to purchase the book.

The Book of Abraham is my favorite book of scripture. Mostly it is because of chapter 3, which contains information that is not found anywhere else in LDS scripture. I also remember discovering the facsimiles as a child and thinking that they were really neat. Unfortunately, the Book of Abraham has also become a favorite for critics to attack, as it is the only book of scripture that Joseph Smith translated for which there appears to be any extant source material, and that material does not seem to match what is in the Book of Abraham. But it’s really much more complicated than that.

This book explains what is currently known about the Book of Abraham and its associated artifacts and documents, and why the critics are wrong. It is written by John Gee, who is a professor of Egyptology at BYU. He got his PhD in Egyptology at Yale and has written many research publications for professional journals as well as writing for LDS audiences. The book is written to be understandable by any reader (although an LDS background is very helpful) in a straightforward manner that actually makes for a fairly quick read.

The book contains 17 chapters, most of them fairly short, that build on each other. At the end is a series of questions and answers that basically provides a summary of the book. It also has photos of the extant papyri, maps, charts, diagrams, and other helpful or interesting illustrations scattered throughout. At the end of most chapters is a list of “Further Reading” with notes about each item. Unfortunately, there are not many footnotes in the book; they only exist to provide sources for quotes. So you have to refer to the notes in the “Further Reading” section to deduce where some of the information came from. This did lead me to find one inconsistency – on page 97, it says “The Book of Abraham begins much like other autobiographies from Abraham’s time and place.” However, on page 103 in “Further Reading,” there is an entry that says, “This essay is a comparison of the Book of Abraham with the only other autobiographical inscription to survive from the approximate time and place of Abraham.”

After the introduction, the book begins with a historical overview which explains how Joseph Smith got the papyri and then what happened to them after his death, with the church finally receiving surviving fragments in 1967 (most of what Joseph had in his possession ended up burning in the Chicago Fire of 1871). “To the disappointment of many, although these remaining fragments contained the illustration that served as the basis for Facsimile 1, they were not the portion of the papyri that contained the text of the Book of Abraham” (page 9).
The next chapter is about the translation. Some have thought that Joseph may have used a seer stone (see my review of Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones), but Gee says that “Some thirdhand accounts claim he did, but those accounts do not come from anyone who actually observed the translation” and that “By the time that Joseph finished translating the Book of Mormon in 1829, he no longer needed to use the Urim and Thummim to receive revelation” (page 20.) What is known is that much more was translated than what ended up being published (the rest has been lost), and that it was done without using a dictionary or grammar as a conventional translation normally would. It does appear that W. W. Phelps attempted to compile an Egyptian grammar after the translation, but the extent of Joseph’s involvement in that is unknown. [Read more…] about Book Review: An Introduction to the Book of Abraham

What if People with Red Hair Were Denied the Priesthood?

by

Scott Gordon as a red-haired boy
Scott Gordon as a red-haired boy

Note – From the mid-1840s until 1978 people of African descent were generally not allowed to have the priesthood or attend the temple in the LDS Church. (Attending the temple is different from going to Church in the LDS faith.) This is in spite of prior practices and temple rules that said they could. Since the primary difference between people with African roots and people with northern European roots is skin color, what if the situation were reversed? This post tries to use humor to address this serious issue. This should not be taken as evidence that the author considers anything about the topic of racism or priesthood to be less than serious. This role reversal is designed to make us think about the issue in a different light.

I was born a redhead. Yes, I’ve “blonded” out a bit as I’ve aged, but both of my daughters were born with deep red hair. So, I know all about red heads. Sometimes we are also known as “gingers.”

While the red hair can attract attention, it isn’t the red hair that is the issue for me. It is the redheads’ skin color. Let me explain.

People with red hair have very fair skin coloring. We have almost no melanin in our skin.  Melanin is the substance that makes skin darker. I joke with my kids that our skin is so transparent that we can see the blood rushing beneath it.  I often look with jealously at my Hispanic or black friends who have such beautiful, uniform skin tones. My skin is reddish and blotchy with a few dots called freckles. In high school I was constantly asked, “Are you blushing?” “No, I just walked up a few stairs, thank you very much.”

A redhead’s skin is very sensitive to sunlight. You may notice if you go walking with a redhead, they sometimes seem to jump from shadow to shadow. We all avoid sunlight. When we read a Twilight novel, we understand how the vampires feel—the sun is not our friend! I often take out my SPF 50 sunscreen and slather it on before I will go out into the sun. It is supposed to allow me to stay in the sun 50 times longer than usual. For me – let’s see now — 50 times what I can usually stay in the sun for without getting a sunburn…that would be……ummm, doing the math here…carry the one…….Hmmm……about 7 and a half minutes before I start to burn.

“But, you are just ‘white’!” you may say. No, my wife is white. Her family comes from Norway and Sweden. She is white. Blindingly white. Her skin looks different than mine. She is white with white and yellow undertones. My ‘white’ is blotchy reddish-white, just like most other redheads. She can go out in the sun. She can lie on the beach. She can go swimming. If I go out in the sun, I will burn. If I lie on the beach, I will burn.  If I go swimming, I will burn.  I tell my students my goal in life is to walk from my office to my car without getting a sunburn.

That said, it isn’t all bad having redhead skin. My skin tone is GREAT for collecting vitamin D in a fogbank. And when I visit Scotland, I have to wear my coat anyway – so it’s not a liability.

My daughter teaches in first grade. She has very red hair. One of her students, whose family came from Africa, was having difficulties with one teacher. We will call this six-year-old student Jamal (not his real name). When asked about it, he said, “She just don’t like me. She’s white and white people don’t like black people like me.” My daughter responded, “That’s not true, Jamal. I’m white and I like you.” “No, Miss Gordon. You’re not white,” responded Jamal. “You’re PINK!” Even a six-year-old can see the difference.

The difference between people we label as “black” and people like me is how much melanin is in our skin. The more melanin, the darker the skin tone. I don’t have very much melanin, so that is why I am the color I am. Some of you may say, “But there are other differences besides skin color!” Yeah, that’s true – my hair is red and theirs is black. But again, that is simply caused by the amount of melanin. My hair is straight and theirs is curly. True. But, my wife’s hair is very curly, and she has family members whose hair would look right at home on someone of African descent (except that they are blond). As for other traits, you can find a wide variety of looks throughout both the white and black communities. In other words, there is as much diversity within each community as there is between the two communities.

So, here’s a thought exercise: What would happen if The Church announced that there was a ban on redheads having the priesthood?

What if it was melanin-deficient people who couldn’t get the priesthood, while melanin-rich people could? What if Gingers went thought a period of slavery because of our skin color? What if we were discriminated against during the 1950s and not allowed to eat in certain places, get certain jobs, use certain bathrooms, or ride in a taxi with someone who had more melanin then we do?

I can just image the conversations in the ward.

“Oh look, a red-haired girl just moved into the ward. Finally, someone you can date!”

“Can you help me with my Northern European History class? You know all that stuff, right?”

“Can I touch your hair? I’ve never seen red hair before. Does it feel different?”

“I was doing family history work last week and was horrified to find out that some red-haired genes got in there somehow. Old great-grandad or grandma must have been cavorting with the field help!”

Yeah, those would be terrible conversations. And yet, I have heard all of those comments from church members.

“But, it isn’t skin color. It’s lineage!” you cry.  So let’s talk about lineage a bit. There are those who believe there is a tie between redheads and Neanderthals.[1] Neanderthals are in the redhead’s linage. Apparently, Neanderthals had red hair, and some Neanderthal genes are found in northern Europeans. They know there was interbreeding between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals.[2] They just are not sure if the red hair trait came from the Neanderthal, or if it developed independently. If Neanderthal man had red hair along with the red-hair skin tones, it would explain one of the great scientific mysteries of why the Neanderthals died out: obviously, the sun came out!

More evidence of having a different lineage is studies that show “people with red hair need larger doses of anesthesia and are often resistant to local pain blockers.”[3]  My first response to this information is “Well, duh! We are used to pain because we walk around sunburned all the time.” But, it turns out it has more to do with our genes.[4] Just ask any operating room nurse or OB nurse how comfortable they feel when a redhead comes in. I have been told by several nurses that if there is going to be a problem, it will probably be with the redhead. So, we are a bit different from other people. Whether this comes from our homegrown genes, or from Neanderthal genes, it certainly shows that our lineage might be different from others—we are demonstrably different than other people. If something is to be restricted based on lineage, it could just as easily be restricted against us redheads.

It’s important to think about what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot. I often hear the refrain, “The Levites were the only ones who had the priesthood at the time of Jesus. So that was a priesthood restriction just like the blacks being restricted in modern times.”

That situation is totally different. With the Levites, only one group held the priesthood and nobody else did. With the modern priesthood restriction, everybody had the priesthood except for one group.

Think of it this way. Everyone understands that in sports there needs to be a team captain to communicate effectively. But, that is totally different than everyone being allowed to play the game except for one player who is forced to sit on the bench. Our brothers and sisters of African descent were forced to sit on the bench. How would that make you feel?

“But, the priesthood ban was a long time ago. What do you want me to do about it?”

I first recommend reading this short article on LDS.org on Race and the Priesthood. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Secondly, if someone asks if Mormon were racists, the correct answer – the only possible answer — is yes. There is no need to get defensive about it. Of course they were! By modern standards, everyone who came through that period would be considered racist today. It is, however, unfair to judge them harshly for their views. It was what they were taught. It was the norm. They did the best they could. Using modern standards, even Abraham Lincoln would be considered racist by many. Additionally, racism doesn’t only exist in the United States. It is a world-wide issue of us vs. them. Skin color has simply been used as an easy identifier of “them.”

Racism has always been with us. Our better selves understand that we need to move beyond that. If someone asks if there was racism in the church, simply say “Sure, and we are trying to repent!”

Third, if someone then asks, how could we have had a prophet if we had such a racist policy? Think about this: if you think that prophets don’t work in a world filled with prejudice and racism, you need to go back and reread the Bible and Book of Mormon. Think of the Samaritans, the Lamanites, the people of Nineveh, and the Philistines. God only gives us what we are willing to accept. It is up to us to try to become more like him.

Many members of the Church believe the ban came from God, or at least that God used the ban for a wise purpose. These positions are speculative. No written revelation has been found that explains the priesthood and temple ban. Some quote scriptures to justify the ban, but historically those scriptures were pulled in as explanations after the ban was already in effect.

Why was there the ban? We don’t know. I can make an educated guess, but my guess would be as valid as your guess—and just as speculative.

Instead of guessing and speculating, let’s simply reach out to each other and embrace one another as brothers and sisters—even redheads! Let’s acknowledge that racism exists and has existed even within the Church. Let’s not nit-pick over how much melanin we have in our skin. Does it really matter? Do you differentiate between your blond children your brown-haired children and your red-haired children? Is there a difference between them?

No, I don’t think so either.

Now please hand me my hat and sunscreen. I have to go outside again.

[1] Red hair a legacy of Neanderthal man http://www.dhamurian.org.au/anthropology/neanderthal1.html

[2] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

[3] https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/the-pain-of-being-a-redhead/

[4] http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/10/why-surgeons-dread-red-heads/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book Review: A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine & Church History

by

Available from the FairMormon bookstore at 20% off
Available from the FairMormon bookstore at 20% off

In the prologue of A Reason for Faith, the editor, Laura Hales, lays out the purpose of the book. Members of the church sometimes come across new information in an unfriendly setting that damages their faith. This book is a compilation of articles about many of the topics that are not often discussed in a church or family setting, and can be difficult to understand. They are laid out by scholars in an honest but faithful manner, and while they can’t possibly cover the topics completely in the amount of space given, they are meant to be a springboard for further study where necessary.

The first chapter is by Richard Bushman, on “Joseph Smith and Money Digging.” He recounts the history of scholarship in this area, where it was originally denied by those inside the church due to being based on accounts thought to be unreliable published by critics of the church. As he began his own research, he found evidence that convinced him that Joseph was indeed involved with folk magic and seer stones, and that these things were too common in the 19th century to invalidate Joseph’s prophetic claims or be scandalous. [Read more…] about Book Review: A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine & Church History

4th Watch 19: Why are Mormons prejudiced?

by

Podcast: Download (36.8MB)

Subscribe: RSS

4thWatch SmallLike all human begins we have our own personal preferences about everything in life.  There are things, people, ideas and places that we may like and prefer that others dislike that have nothing to do with being prejudiced.  When it comes to real prejudice we need to define what we are talking about.

In this podcast Brother Scarisbrick relates how our understanding of different times and cultural norms can change as we gain further light and knowledge.

As always the views and opinions expressed in the podcast may not reflect or represent those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that of FairMormon.

RiseUp Podcast – From Baptist Preacher to Mormon Teacher, the story of Wain Myers

by

Podcast: Download (50.6MB)

Subscribe: RSS

From-Baptist-Preacher-to-Mormon-Teacher_978-1-4621-1702-4Wain Myers is a native of Dayton, Ohio and a graduate of John H. Patterson High School where he was a state discus champion and musician. After graduation, Wain enlisted in the United States Army and served a tour of duty in Bad Kissingen, Germany. After his military career, Wain returned to the U.S. and began preaching at True Vine Missionary Baptist church. Where he preached for over five years and was then introduced to the LDS church by his now lovely wife Sebrina.

Wain developed a passion for finance after his military career and enrolled in the Alpha & Omega College Real Estate in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and became a loan originator in 2007. Investing into his insurance business, he and his family moved to Terre Haut, Indiana, in 2009. Wain became very active in the Terre Haute community.

Wain has also been an active member in The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints since 1995 and served on the Bloomington Indiana Stake High Council before moving to Salt Lake City, Utah, and being call as second counselor in the Genesis Group leadership.

Wain and Sebrina are the proud parents of seven amazing children; Le’Roy Jr., Isaiah; who is currently serving his mission in the Baton Rouge Louisiana mission, Bradford and his wife Paige, Quesley, Braxton, Spencer, and Ammon.

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN THE INTERVIEW:

The story of you coming to find the church has some interesting twists and turns and would be a great way to get to know you. Would you tell us the story of your military career leading up to first starting as a baptist preacher?

What were some of the impressions that you had about the Mormon Church prior to becoming a member?

At one point in your story you had some difficulties with what has come to be called the Priesthood ban where those of black African decent were not allowed to hold the priesthood. You ended up having to come to terms with that and have since of course remained an active member. How did you view that part of church history, and how have you overcome it?

You are now involved in the Genesis Group. What is the Genesis Group?

You have a book coming out in October 2015 I believe called, at for now, From Baptist Preacher to Mormon Teacher. The title might be a little obvious, but what will the book be about?

RiseUp Podcast – Having conversations about the history of Blacks and the LDS Church

by

Podcast: Download (25.9MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Race issues in the LDS Church can be difficult to understand and even more difficult to talk about. The church released an official statement regarding some history on this subject, but there are those who still have questions. Russell Stevenson has dedicated a good portion of his adult life to studying this history, and has written on this subject. He offers three suggestions on how to approach and discuss this controversial subject—namely the history of Black’s in the Mormon Church.

To purchase a copy of Russell Stevenson’s latest book: For the Cause of Righteousness — click here.

To purchase a copy of Russell Stevenson’s previous book, Black Mormon: The Story of Elijah Ables — click here.

FairMormon-Rise-Up-iTunes-logo

Articles of Faith 16: Margaret Blair Young – The Heart of Africa and The Welcome Table

by

Podcast: Download (56.7MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Margaret-Blair-Young-150x150Margaret Blair Young was raised in the Church and learned the standard Mormon clichés and customary phrases of a Mormon testimony. As a child, she could imitate the strokes and expressions of Mormonism well, in time she came to understand these were expressions of an immature, inexperienced faith. Time propelled her further into the faith. In time she began to be immersed in more controversial areas of LDS history: race issues and the priesthood restriction, keeping those of African lineage from receiving the priesthood or temple blessings for over a century. She wrote three books and made two documentaries on these subjects with Darius Gray, a black man who joined the Church in 1964, fourteen years before the restriction was lifted.

Margaret Blair Young is the past president of the Association for Mormon Letters and has published eight books—novels and short stories. Three of these were co-authored with Darius Gray and give the history of Black Latter-day Saints. She and Gray also made the documentary Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons. She has written six encyclopedia articles and other scholarly papers on Blacks in the western USA, and particularly on Black Mormons. She used to teach creative writing at BYU but now travels the world in her off time.

Questions addressed during the interview:

You just got back from Africa. Where were you and what were you doing there?

How is the church doing in Africa? What is it like on a day to day basis?

What are some of the difficult questions or situations for which the African Saints are seeking answers or solutions?

There is an article on your blog through patheos, The Welcome Table, the article is entitled Developing Spiritual Taste. In your world travels and in your film directing efforts on church related themes, you have no doubt encountered critics or at least statements that seem to be critical of at least perceptions of church doctrines and culture. You even address the motivation for the article, at least in part, by offering this brief anecdote: When I was in my late twenties, someone said to me, “You’re too smart to be a Mormon.” Clearly, I’m not. But the picture of Mormonism this person had in mind does not represent the kind of Mormonism I live.” What is the kind of Mormonism that you live, the kind that you layout in this article?

You talk about, in your Mormon Scholars Testify Page, a story where your husband once gave you a priesthood blessing during a particularly trying moment. He said these words: “I bless you that your memories will be sanctified as the larger picture unfolds, and you will view all of the difficulties and trials you’re enduring now with gratitude and love.”This is the blessing of perspective. It illuminates not only my personal history, but the hard historical episodes of my religion. What has that blessing meant in your research into as you put it, the more controversial parts of Mormon History?

Margaret Blair Young is the author of several titles as well as director and producer of several documentaries on the history of Black members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Click here for more information on Margaret Blair Young’s upcoming Film Project, The Heart of Africa.

Click here to read from Margaret Blair Young’s entries at Patheos under the heading, The Welcome Table.

Does God Authorize His Prophets to Make Mistakes?

by

Crucible_of_Doubt

[The Crucible of Doubt can be purchased from the FairMormon Bookstore.]

Within the past year, the Church published an article addressing the fact that for a long period in the Church’s history, black men were not allowed to be ordained to the priesthood.[i] The article acknowledged that leaders of the Church gave explanations for the ban that we now recognize as being incorrect. For some people, this article has raised as many questions as it answered. While many have experienced a sense of relief in seeing the Church disavow explanations for the ban that denigrated those of African descent, others have experienced a new sense of anxiety over the question of the extent to which we can rely on the teachings of the prophets and apostles. And to what extent can we be confident that the policies adopted by the Church are ordained of God?

Terryl and Fiona Givens directly addressed the question of prophetic infallibility in their book Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest for Faith. Terryl Givens has earlier, if only briefly, addressed this question, in his “Letter to a Doubter.”[ii] In their new book, the Givenses expand on this issue. The “Letter to a Doubter” essentially limited itself to a discussion of the fact that prophets are human, and humans make mistakes. However, chapter six of The Crucible of Doubt goes into more depth regarding the principles of delegation of authority and prophets as agents for God.

The concept of God delegating his authority to men on Earth and making them His agents, who act on His behalf, is not a new one. However, the Givenses discuss the concept in a way that may help illuminate the mechanism by which prophets act on God’s behalf and why doing so does not ensure that mistakes will not be made by God’s agents.

The title of chapter six is “On Delegation and Discipleship: The Ring of Pharaoh.” This title is a reference to the story of Joseph of Egypt:

When Joseph of the many-colored coat had gained Pharaoh’s complete trust and confidence, “Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand.” With this gesture, Pharaoh transferred his own power and authority to the former Hebrew slave. “Without your consent,” the Pharaoh told him, “no one shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”[iii]

Of course, when authority is delegated, it does not mean that the agent will always do precisely what is intended by the one delegating authority. This is obvious in the context of human interactions. However, we sometimes may hope and expect that when God delegates authority to a prophet, that the human in this scenario will somehow rise to the level of perfection inhabited by the one who has delegated the authority; that if one is acting for God, one will act like God. However, the scriptures do not give us this assurance.

In fact, the scriptures provide plenty of examples of prophets making mistakes and acting in ways that could be considered ungodly. For example, Moses disobeyed God’s instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, “Must we fetch you water out of this rock?” He was chastised by the Lord afterward. (Numbers 20.) Nathan told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was not His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. (2 Samuel 7.) And Jonah felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. (Jonah 4.)

So prophets can guide us and direct us, but they can also test our faith, not just in calling us to live on a higher plane, but also in demonstrating that they do not always reach a higher plane themselves. In light of this, the Givenses note:

And if delegation is a real principle—if God really does endow mortals with the authority to act in His place and with His authority, even while He knows they will not act with infallible judgment—then it becomes clearer why God is asking us to receive the words of the prophet “as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.”[iv]

Of course, most of us are familiar with the observation made by Joseph Smith that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such” (HC 5:265). We also often hear repeated the scripture, “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38.) When these two statements are considered at once, we may tend to think that if we can just determine whether or not a prophet is acting as a prophet, or as God’s “servant,” we will know whether or not we can consider his words to be the infallible words of God. It may seem that if the president of the Church makes a statement that we later learn to be untrue, or enacts a policy that seems to have been mistaken, we can find comfort in the notion that the man may not have been acting on behalf of God on those occasions. This becomes more difficult, however, when a statement is made, or a policy announced, in General Conference, or on Church letterhead along with the signatures or other members of the First Presidency.

But perhaps in thinking this, we have misunderstood the principle of delegation of authority. For example, while there are statements that have been understood to mean that prophets, or God’s servants, cannot err when acting as God’s servants, the scriptures themselves undercut this interpretation. For example, while D&C Section 1 says “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,” a few verses earlier, we read:

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; 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; emphasis added).

Another commonly quoted statement in support of the concept of prophetic inerrancy is that of Wilford Woodruff, when, speaking of abandoning the practice of polygamy, he said:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. [v]

However, in addition to the aforementioned reasons to doubt that this statement supports the view that prophets cannot make mistakes, Elders Packer and Uchtdorf have given us additional reasons to doubt this conclusion. Elder Uchtdorf said, “This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.”[vi] Elder Packer added that “…even with the best of intentions, it [the governance of the Church by mortal priesthood holders] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work.”[vii] In other words, while leaders can make mistakes, God will not allow the leaders to utterly destroy the work of the latter-day Church or cause the members to lose their opportunity to receive exaltation.

So when God says that the prophet is His agent on Earth, perhaps He is not saying that, when acting as the prophet, the man will always do exactly what God wants any more than by giving Joseph his ring, Pharaoh was assuring the people of Egypt that Joseph would always do exactly what Pharaoh would have done in his place. Right or wrong, the people of Egypt were to consider Joseph’s actions to be the actions of Pharaoh and were to be bound by Joseph’s words and actions as if they were the words and actions of Pharaoh.

Of course, this principle is not limited to the delegation of authority to a prophet. The Givenses ask “If a bishop makes a decision without inspiration, are we bound to sustain the decision?” And what if an apostle makes a mistake in calling a stake president?

The story is told of a Church official who returned from installing a new stake presidency. “Dad, do you Brethren feel confident when you call a man as the stake president that he is the Lord’s man?” the official’s son asked upon his father’s return home. “No, not always,” he replied. “But once we call him, he becomes the Lord’s man.” The answer disconcerts initially. Is this not hubris, to expect God’s sanction for a decision made in error? Perhaps. It is also possible that the reply reveals the only understanding of delegation that is viable.[viii]

The Givenses continue by observing:

If God honored only those decisions made in perfect accord with His perfect wisdom, then His purposes would require leaders who were utterly incapable of misconstruing His intention, who never missed hearing the still small voice, who were unerringly and unfailingly a perfect conduit for heaven’s inspiration. And it would render the principle of delegation inoperative. The Pharaoh didn’t say to Joseph, your authority extends as far as you anticipate perfectly what I would do in every instance. He gave Joseph his ring…. And after calling Joseph Smith to his mission, the Lord didn’t say, I will stand by you as long as you never err in judgment. He said, “Thou wast called and chosen. . . . Devote all thy service in Zion; and . . . lo, I am with thee, even unto the end.”[ix]

In light of all this, what are we to believe, ask the Givenses, when confronted by “faith-wrenching practices (polygamy), missteps and errors (Adam-God), and teachings that the Church has abandoned but not fully explained (the priesthood ban).”[x] In response, they quote the Anglican churchman Austin Farrer, who said “Facts are not determined by authority. Authority can make law to be law; authority cannot make facts to be facts.”[xi] To this, they add the words of Henry Eyring, who once quoted his father as saying, “in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.”[xii]

Of course, while we may harbor misgivings in our minds regarding some policy, teaching or practice, how are we to act when confronted with doubts about whether or not an agent of God is actually doing God’s will? In response to this issue, Farrer is again quoted: “If Peter and his colleagues make law in applying the Lord’s precepts, . . . their law is the law of Christ’s Church, the best (if you will) that God’s Spirit can make with human instruments there and then, and, as such, to be obeyed as the will of God Himself. But to call Peter infallible in this connection is to misplace an epithet.”[xiii]

To carry the metaphor of agency and delegation further, we can consider the legal realm. What recourse exists against a principle when the agent causes some harm? Under the doctrine of agency law, if a person is injured by an agent who is acting under the authority of the principle, the principle will be liable for the harm and is required to set things right. Of course, while all wrongs and injustices have not yet been set right in this imperfect world, Christ has already paid the price for such wrongs. In other words, the miracle of delegation of divine authority does not ensure that the agent will always act according to God’s will. Rather, it ensures that God will guarantee the actions of the agent, and if the actions are wrong, through Christ’s atonement, all will be made right in the end. Indeed, even those things that can cause fear, doubt and pain can be made to benefit us in the end:

One comfort is to be found in a God whose power is in His magnanimity as well as His wisdom. These two traits mean that His divine energies are spent not in precluding chaos but in reordering it, not in preventing suffering but in alchemizing it, not in disallowing error but in transmuting it into goodness.[xiv]

Even the agents of God, even when acting as God’s agents, can cause fear, pain and confusion in this world. Although this may frustrate us, it does not frustrate God’s plan. In closing, we are reminded that the words of God’s servants can provide comfort and direction, even when counseling us regarding the imperfect words and actions of God’s servants themselves:

“Imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with,” reminds Elder Jeffrey Holland. “That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we.” Generosity with our own inept attempts to serve and minister to each other in a lay church, charity toward those in leadership who, as President Dieter Uchtdorf noted, have “said or done [things] that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine,” and faith in Christ’s Atonement that makes up the human deficit—these could be the balm of Gilead for which both wounded disciples and striving leaders seek.[xv]

[i] Race and the Priesthood.

[ii] Terryl L. Givens, “Letter to a Doubter,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 4 (2013): 131-146. An audio version was published on FairMormon Blog.

[iii] Terryl Givens & Fiona Givens, The Crucible of Doubt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 73, citing Genesis 41:42 & 44, NRSV.

[iv] Givens & Givens, 75, citing D&C 21:5 (emphasis added).

[v] Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, 6 October 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News (11 October 1890): 2; cited in LDS scriptures after Official Declaration 1.

[vi] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come Join With Us,” general conference, October 2013.

[vii] Boyd K. Packer, “”I Say unto You, Be One,'” in BYU Devotional and Fireside Speeches, 1990–1991 (Provo, Utah: University Publications, 1991), 84, emphasis added.

[viii] Givens & Givens, 75-76, citing a personal conversation reported to authors by Robert L. Millet.

[ix] Ibid., 76, quoting D&C 24:1, 7, 8.

[x] Ibid., 74.

[xi] Ibid., 74, quoting Austin Farrer, “Infallibility and Historical Tradition,” in The Truth-Seeking Heart, ed. Ann Loades and Robert MacSwain (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2006), 83.

[xii] Ibid., 74, quoting Henry J. Eyring, Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007), 4.

[xiii] Ibid., 74-75, quoting Farrer, “Infallibility,” 83–84.

[xiv] Ibid., 78.

[xv] Ibid., 82, quoting Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lord, I Believe,” Ensign, May 2013, 94 and Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” Ensign, November 2013, 22.