An Update to My Faith Crisis
Yesterday, I read two conference talks and a couple of thoughts came to mind. Both talks are about modern day prophets and each speaker references a talk given by President Ezra Taft Benson while at a BYU devotional. The first quote I want to reflect on comes from Obedience to the Prophets by Elder Claudio R. M. Costa. In it he says:
“In 1980, when President Ezra Taft Benson was serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he gave a powerful message about obedience to the prophets at a BYU devotional in the Marriott Center. His great talk, titled “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” touched my heart” - Obedience to the Prophets, page 2
This was interesting to me because I always had this thought in the back of my mind that statements or talks given at BYU could be argued to not be doctrinal to the church. But here we have a member of The Seventy directly referencing a talk from a BYU devotional. With that in mind, all those early church leader statements at BYU concerning human evolution are therefore doctrinal then as well, even though the church seems to be walking back some of those stances.
My second thought pertains to the “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” both talks reiterate upon. Keep in mind, these talks were given during the same General Conference in October 2010. Costa gave his talk in 2010 during the Saturday morning session. Our Very Survival by Elder Kevin R. Duncan was given in 2010 during the Saturday afternoon session. I found this important to point out because I doubt Elder Duncan rewrote his talk right after hearing Elder Costa’s talk that morning. These talks were most likely written well in advance and approved by the First Presidency. I make this point because it would seem the First Presidency really wanted to solidify these fourteen fundamentals about following the prophets and leave no room for members to question them.
For the following quotes, I am taking them directly from Elder Duncan’s talk as he reiterates what was spoken by Elder Costa and therefore, President Ezra Taft Benson respectfully.
First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
I understand The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints faith believes the prophet to be the only one who is here that can speak for God towards the church. But this sentence is not implying just the church, but everything. So my question becomes, when do we know when the Lord is speaking or if the prophet is just sharing their opinion on something? Because it sounds like the prophet, the only man who can speak for the Lord in everything doesn’t seem to do a whole lot of that. Maybe the Lord just doesn’t have that much to say?
Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
I suppose this isn’t too controversial. In my view, most of the scriptures are fictional stories that are there to build a narrative around God. So it would make sense that anyone who is able to speak on issues of today would be more vital for our “survival” or salvation than a book concerned with the issues of the time it was written.
Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
Again, kind of like the last point, it makes sense. But that only works if the living prophet actually leads his people.
Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
I have a hard time with this statement in particular. There are many instances where the prophet has lead the “church” astray.
- Racial priesthood and temple restrictions (1852–1978)
- Mountain Meadows Massacre (1857)
- Polygamy
- Electroshock aversion therapy at BYU (1960s–70s)
- The Equal Rights Amendment campaign (1970s–80s)
- September Six (1993)
- LGBTQ+ policies (2015-2019)
Among these, I also believe the prophets past and present positions on evolution and science to be a huge issue. It breeds distrust and unwarranted skepticism towards doctors and other experts in scientific fields. Because the right is so anti-vaccines and church leaders have been mostly silent on the issue, most members who have been taught to be skeptical of the science in Sunday school will lean towards opposing vaccines. This leads to children of ignorant parents not getting the preventive care they need and suffering. Again, the prophet has made no statements on the matter. Can’t follow a prophet that doesn’t lead.
Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
This to me is scary and should be easy to see why it’d be a problem. As I stated earlier here, many prophets spoke out against human evolution and today, those statements are being swept under the rug. I’d be more comfortable with this if the prophet was required to say “this saith the Lord” when speaking on anything outside his expertise. Oh wait…
Sixth: The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.
So when do you know if a prophet is sharing his own opinion or speaking for the Lord? Well, you don’t. It’s from God as long as it’s not disproven or sheds bad light on the church. If that now deceased prophets statements are later disproven or shines enough bad light on the church, well then it was just the incorrect opinions of a fallible man. It seems the prophets of the church like to hide behind this ambiguity. Hindsight is 20/20, but someone who speaks for an all-knowing and all-powerful God shouldn’t have a need for hindsight.
Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
I (along with some extremely skeptical members of the church) needed to know if the COVID-19 vaccine was safe to take. Luckily, we have medical professionals who I trust more than the opposing political views surrounding it. The First Presidency only released a statement recommending the vaccine an entire year after its introduction. Why did the Lord wait so long to tell His followers a life saving medicine was safe to take?
Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
Sure seems like it. Not a great track record so far.
Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
Much like number 5, this can be scary. But also, if there was a God who knows everything there is to know, it would be nice if the Lord would give us more concrete revelation on literally anything. Even the scriptures could use a bit of revealing at this point.
Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
This is an interesting point to make. The Pope even gets involved in civic matters. It’s also quite apparent that the First Presidency is concerned with matters of religious freedom and a tax exempt status. The prophet being involved in civic matters seems like a “water is wet” statement.
Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
Not about following the prophets, but rather about the people who don’t follow them with “proud” being the common denominator. I don’t believe I am proud. I’m just looking for the truth. As I read, ponder, and learn more about the church, its doctrines, and various fields of science, the less I’m posed to believe in the church and its prophets. To me, this statement reads more like divine permission to be ignorant and poor which are often closely associated.
Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
Okay? Doubt any religious leader is concerned with being popular to what they’d consider a worldly audience.
Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
Statement defining their own organization. Nothing really controversial.
… the living prophet and the First Presidency … and be blessed; reject them and suffer.
Much like point eleven, this last fundamental about prophets isn’t really about prophets or following them. It’s a threat or as they’d frame it a warning. I know of many people who don’t follow the prophets or the church who seem to be doing fine. This statement seems to be more of a fear tactic than any decent point.