Assessing the Bounds of Infallibility
Posted on Sep 30, 2014 by Trevor in Religion
Apostle Dallin Oaks tweeted the following recently:
We only say what the Spirit directs us to say at conference. I invite you to listen Oct. 4-5. http://t.co/mEPMpunXxu pic.twitter.com/7vEJoGgrUX
— Dallin H. Oaks (@OaksDallinH) September 26, 2014
Elder Oaks will speak once or perhaps twice in the upcoming conference. Now, the most straightforward interpretation of this statement, in my opinion, is that he’s saying his words are God’s words. I suspect most Mormons following conference would also accept this interpretation. After all, his words immediately bring a certain scripture passage to mind:
2And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—
3And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. 4And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.
We have a problem, though: how is this notion any different than the doctrine of infallible leaders, which is ostensibly a false doctrine? I’m not the only one to wonder this, of course, as Twitter responses immediately following showed. What’s the difference between holding up the leaders as infallible and holding them up as nearly infallible? What meaningful difference is there between what that tweet says and “We only say scripture at conference”? How many more Uchtdorf-isms are going to be needed to undo this perception?
I spent about two years as a youth Sunday School teacher. A good portion of that time I taught every week. While some lessons received less attention than others, I sincerely and diligently prepared for every single lesson. Could I have prefaced each lesson with, “I only teach what the Spirit directs me to teach”?
Now, before someone points out that “apostle” is a different calling than “Sunday School teacher”, I want you to tell me how and why. Yes, obviously they entail different stewardships, but I was just as responsible for teaching a good lesson to my kids as Elder Oaks is for leading the church.
This kind of thing just perplexes me. Elder Oaks was a lawyer before his career in the church; he’s intelligent and knows very well how to craft a single, carefully worded statement; and this tweet was certainly anything but impromptu. Surely he must understand that this sort of message perpetuates the pervasive problem the church has with its members believing the leaders are infallible couriers of God’s will?
