This is a topic that I think is important to address, yet it is one that we are often afraid to address. Perhaps this is because we feel like that by pointing out or acknowledging where the Brethren are in error that we are questioning the Lord Himself or like we might damage another person’s faith. Yet we all know it happens and the leaders of the Church have openly admitted it. President Brigham Young taught:
Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken? Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right.
Apostles are often wrong when citing scriptures and when citing history. And refusing to address the issue creates a very unhealthy aura of infallibility around the Brethren that not only forces more weight upon their shoulders than they already carry but it also creates a very weak and sandy foundation upon which to build our own testimonies. We may ignore their errors and failings for a long time, eventually though we will be forced to confront them and if we have not developed our faith and our understanding on this issue – of how to deal with the errors in scriptural exegesis and historical understanding they have – then it can become the shoals upon which our testimony gets stranded or even broken.
This past General Conference (October 2020) gave us two very easy examples of Apostles getting things wrong historically and scripturally. Elder Cook’s talk makes it sound like the relationship between the Latter-day Saints and the Native Americans were largely peaceful and built on mutual respect. This is a simplification of history, at best. As historian Dr. Thomas Alexander talks about in his biography of Brigham Young, Brigham Young and the Expansion of the Mormon Faith, the relationship between the Natives and the Saints was a lot more complex than that. While it is true that the relationship between Natives and Saints may be said to have been better than the relationship between Natives and other American immigrants, to pretend like there weren’t outbreaks of mass violence, massacres, and racism is to ignore reality. (As a side note, Dr. Alexander actually uses the frequency of low level local violence between LDS settlers and Natives in defiance of Brigham Young’s policy which was largely based on appeasement and aid as proof that Brigham’s control over the Saints specifically and Utah generally was a lot less absolute than both member and non-members have often assumed.) In terms of scriptural interpretation, a prime example would be President Oaks’s talk where he completely misunderstands Christ’s teaching when He said, ““Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.” President Oaks teaches this meant that we should be in submission to the State’s authority when, in fact, Christ was teaching the exact opposite. To these examples there can be added a host of other examples of times where Prophets and Apostles have been wrong about both scripture and history.
This naturally causes the question to arise, if these men are guided by God, then how can they get these issues wrong? The answer to that question is, I think, three-fold. First, we must address the question in terms of factual accuracy. Second, we have to address the issue in terms of scriptural accuracy. Finally, we have to address what it means to be inspired by God and how we should approach the errors by the Brethren in a way that still nourishes our faith. In doing so I think that we can conclude that even when the Brethren are mistaken on some point of historical or scientific fact or scriptural exegesis we can still have faith in their ultimate inspiration and calling by God.
The Factual Problem
I think this one is probably the easiest to solve. No one expects the Prophets or Apostles to be experts on every scientific discovery or historical event. To demand that of them is to demand something that is literally impossible for them to accomplish. It is simply unreasonable to expect them to know everything before they talk about it. Often these types of facts are completely inconsequential to the truth they are teaching anyway. For example, Elder Cook’s understanding of the relationship between the Saints and the Native Americans of Utah, as expressed in his talk, is limited and simplistic, at best. But this doesn’t really change the point that he is teaching. His ultimate point is that the culture of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is superior to all other cultures on the Earth and that as we all strive to live the Gospel and become united in spirit, faith, and purpose with Jesus Christ by doing so then we will naturally be united in society with one another with the natural outcome of our actions being the creation of Zion. His comments on the relationship between the Native Americans and the Saints are tangental to this truth and his being incorrect on it doesn’t alter the larger Gospel truth that he is teaching.
This is equally true when it comes to scientific truths. I’m sure some people will counter, “But thinking the world was created in six days is wrong.” And to that I respond that they are correct. The Restored Gospel teaches that the world wasn’t created in six days. Even the Church’s official manual teaches the “six days” of Creation weren’t literal 24-hour periods as its says, “But first, what is a day? It is a specified time period; it is an age, an eon, a division of eternity; it is the time between two identifiable events. And each day, of whatever length, has the duration needed for its purposes.” So what are we to make of it when an Apostle seems to believe the world was literally created in six 24-hour periods? We make of it the same as we do historical errors. We look to the principles and truths the speaker is trying to teach through their human imperfections in knowledge or understanding. Whether the Apostle is right about quantum dynamics or evolutionary theory is irrelevant to the underlying truth he is trying to teach about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, our relationship to God, or our responsibility to build Zion by living God’s commandments.
The Scriptural Problem
Now this one might be a bit more of an issue for some people. We get that the Apostles and Prophets, though they all are very well educated and come from different walks of life, are typically not experts in history or science. As a result I think it is easier to understand where they could make errors in these fields and it not impugn upon their authority as religious leaders. But what are you supposed to do when they interpret the scriptures wrong? After all, these men are supposed to be full – time, fully dedicated, religious leaders. While we don’t typically expect them to be university educated theologians, nor do they need to be as it would hinder them as much help them considering the apostate conditions of most theology centers in academia, we still expect them to know and understand the scriptures. That is, for a lack of a better term, their job. And, perhaps on a deeper level, we might wonder how men who are supposedly called by God could get the message of God’s word incorrect.
These are valid concerns, perhaps even moreso than the concerns over mere factual errors. Yet, I believe that the solution to the problem is similar. It begins with each of us understanding interpretation is not the same as revelation. And that distinction is important because, as President J. Reuben Clark once wrote, only one of those binds us to belief:
Now, as to what the earlier brethren have said–where they have declared themselves as speaking under inspiration and by the authority of the Lord, I bow to what they say. But where they express views based on their own understanding and interpretation, then none of us are foreclosed from exercising our own reasoning powers, inadequate though they may be; but the earlier views do not foreclose us from thinking. This is particularly true, where we come to interpreting their interpretations.
In other words, we are only bound to believe the revelations of God. What any specific church leader, be he Prophet, Apostle, or Seventy, believes base don their interpretations of the revelations of God are not binding upon the church as something we must believe in. This makes sense. Scriptural exegesis not the primary role of the Prophets and Apostles. The Apostle Peter teaches concerning the scriptures and their interpretation that:
We have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 2: 19-21
The key to scripture is that no single interpretation is wholly authoritative based upon the private interpretation of any individual, no matter what their calling or office. The only thing that any interpretation of scripture can have validity is if it is guided by that same power that gave it originally – the power of the Holy Spirit. And in that no man or woman has any greater or lesser power because of their position in the Church structure or because of their calling. The Holy Spirit is a gift given to all members who can all equally partake of its power as they individually live the Gospel of Jesus Christ. An Apostle has no more authority to interpret the scriptures than the most recently baptized and confirmed member of the Church because they both have equal access to the inspiration and direction of the Holy Spirit.
So, if it is not the role of an Apostle to provide definitive scriptural interpretation, then what does an Apostle do? President Gordon B. Hinckley, himself an Apostle, described an Apostle’s role thusly:
The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles, called and ordained to hold the keys of the priesthood, have the authority and responsibility to govern the Church, to administer its ordinances, to expound its doctrine, and to establish and maintain its practices.
Apostles hold the keys of the priesthood, the Keys of the Kingdom, and are responsible for leading and guiding the Church according to revelation from Heaven. In doing so they work together to teach the doctrines of the Church, and maintain the practices and ordinances of the Gospel. Now you may be thinking, but isn’t interpreting the scriptures the same things as declaring the doctrines of the Church? And the answer to that is, no. It really isn’t. The doctrines of the Church are sometimes drawn from the scriptures, but they are not drawn solely from the scriptures. And often we get the process backwards and interpret our doctrines into the scriptures rather than from the scriptures. The Church released a statement on the concept of doctrine and where it comes form that is relevant and can inform our understanding of this issue:
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
Notice that there are at least four separate sources for doctrine listed in the above quotation and only one of them is scripture. In fact, the quotation says that an Apostle’s scriptural interpretation is not doctrine and is not binding on the Church outright, which echoes the position put forward by Elder Clarke as quoted earlier in this article. Doctrine is declared by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, not by any single member or person interpreting the scriptures. The Apostles and Prophets are imperfect and make mistakes and their individual scriptural interpretations are not binding doctrines or binding explanations of scripture that the church members have to follow or believe. They, like all people, can only communicate imperfectly, even as they try and communicate divine truths. In fact we should probably expect this as the Lord has taught that He “giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.” (2 Nephi 31:3) The Lord speaks to us according to what we can understand now based on our own language and intelligence, not what we could understand or what we will in Eternity because we aren’t yet ready or able to understand those truths.
Therefore, it is not to their interpretation of scriptures that we should look, but to the truths that they are striving to teach, even if they are doing so imperfectly. President Oaks’s talk is a good example of this principle. Yes, he totally misunderstood the scripture about rendering to Caesar’s that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s. But the doctrine that he was teaching – that hatred, violence, contention, and anger are destructive tools of Satan and in direct opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ which commands us to have patience, to love our enemies, and to do good to the those who hate and persecute us while we strive to live lives founded upon peace – are powerful eternal truths that would transform our society politically, socially, and economically if followed. President Oaks was teaching these true doctrines in the best way that he could, according to the language and understanding that he has, and if he misunderstood a few scriptures along the way those truths he taught are still absolute.
Misinterpreting scripture doesn’t challenge his Apostleship as it is not based on his ability to correctly interpret scripture. The Apostleship is based upon the priesthood keys given him which authorize him as one who can, along with all the other Apostles acting in concert, officially lead the Church, administer its ordinances, and declare its doctrines. As long as he worthily holds those keys and worthily acts in his office as Apostle then his misinterpreting scripture is neither a challenge to his position nor his authority. Nor, for that matter, is misinterpreting scripture a challenge to the truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Christ’s true and living church today. Additionally, recognizing when an Apostle has misinterpreted scripture is not a challenge to the authority of the Prophets or Apostles because all confirmed members have the Gift of the Holy Spirit and therefore the possible power to interpret scriptures as Peter taught, but also because the authority of the Apostles is not based on their ability to perfectly interpret scripture.
The Key
The key then on what to focus upon when the Apostles speak is a simple one. The key is to focus on what doctrines they are teaching and the principles according to which we can apply those doctrines into our lives as disciples of Christ. For example, Elder Cook may have been simplistic and mistaken when he suggested that the relationship between the Saints and the Natives was a lot more peaceful than it was. But his point isn’t to argue that fact. His point is to hopefully illustrate examples of how living the Gospel can increase the spiritual and social unity of a community and contribute to the creation of peace and establishment of Zion. Similarly, President Oaks may be wrong that “render unto Caesar” means that we have to be under submission to the governments which claim authority over us. But he isn’t wrong when he teaches that violence and destruction will not make our lives or society better and that the best way to make the world a better place is to follow Christ’s commands to love and serve our enemies.
When we focus on the doctrines being taught and the principles by which we can apply those doctrines in our lives we will greatly increase our ability to hear the direction of the Lord as it comes through His chosen Prophets and Apostles without allowing ourselves to be distracted and bogged down in details that are tangental to the ultimate purpose of the talk and counsel that they are giving. This in turns helps us to focus our testimonies and faith on what really matters – hearing and following the Lord. It allows us to then build our testimonies and faith as we not only recognize the doctrines and principles being taught but by allowing us to actually put those doctrines and teachings into practice in our lives so that we can personally experience the joys and revelations promised to those who follow God for ourselves. We increase not only our ability to be hearers of the word, but also our power to be doers of the word. It also helps us to develop greater interest in and derive greater guidance from those whom we usually find less enjoyable or less captivating, whether it be a Prophet and Apostle or someone bearing their testimony in our ward. This is because now instead of focusing on how entertaining or captivating any particular speaker may or may not be we are instead focusing on the truths the Lord is using him (or her) to communicate to the world, truths which are dynamic and sublime all on their own not because of who said them but because of their Source.