by

Mette Ivie Harrison is a regular guest here at BCC and author of many books, including The Book of Laman.

I’ve struggled a lot lately with what it means to sustain a prophet within Mormonism, and if that is possible when I disagree strongly with policies which are given the status of “revelation” within Mormonism, including, for instance, The Proclamation on the Family, or the new policy demanding excommunication of same-sex married couples who are Mormon and the exclusion of their children from saving ordinances including baptism.

Mormons loudly proclaim that prophets aren’t perfect, and that they make mistakes. But we are also told that God will never allow a prophet to lead the church “astray.” And we are told that if we disagree with fundamentals of the church, we should pray until God tells us that we are wrong. The idea that God might tell us that we are right and that the prophets are wrong isn’t something that is often spoken of—presumably because the assumption is that this cannot and will not happen.

And yet the history of the church speaks to numerous and even constant situations in which prophets were wrong. One only has to read the church’s own essay on its website on “Race and the Priesthood” to begin to face the thorny ways in which prophets have indeed led the church astray in big ways, not just tiny personal defects.

If Brigham Young instituted a racist policy against blacks that was not originally intended by church leader Joseph Smith, then what does this mean? One could come to the conclusion logically that Brigham Young was not the proper successor to Joseph Smith and that either one of the other branches of Mormonism is correct or that none of them are. (In fact, there are many cases of former Mormons coming to precisely one of these conclusions.)

Apologists are eager to tell us that Brigham Young was a “man of his time,” and that he was still the prophet, though his mind was clouded when it came to this one policy, which is now loudly proclaimed not a doctrine, nearly as loudly as it was proclaimed a doctrine not only by Brigham Young but by nearly every succeeding prophet of the LDS church. Those who read the history of Mormonism cannot escape the nastiness of some of these quotes, no matter how apologist they are.

That curse [black skin] will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. (Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 290-291)

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un- comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:290-291, October 9, 1859)

If we are to hold to the promise that no prophet can lead the church astray, then how did God allow Brigham Young to say these things? Was this not leading the church astray? Furthermore, why didn’t other prophets recant what Brigham Young had said about the curse of Cain? Why did it take until 1978, when political pressure was at its peak, for the church to change this policy? Why did it take more than thirty years for the church to admit that this policy was never God’s will, despite many Mormons arguing for so long that it was simply the right time for the priesthood ban to end in 1978?

It’s painful for me as a Mormon to read the following quotes from prophets into the twentieth century:

There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits. (Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66.)

The privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations. (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 165).

These quotes extend beyond racial bias and into disability. Though the church currently touts itself as believing in equality among the races and that those with disabilities will be healed in the resurrection and may be sent directly to the celestial kingdom because they are among the most noble and devoted of God’s children from the pre-existence, the prejudice against anyone not able-bodied and white seems clear here.

Even Spencer W. Kimball, who lifted the priesthood ban in 1978, spent much of his career defending a church policy against interracial marriage:

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs. (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 303)

As a Mormon who is trying to stay believing and who is trying to figure out how I can sustain prophets I think are partly “men of their times,” partly physically and mentally infirm (more and more over the last forty years of the church), and partly “inspired” and chosen leaders of God, what do I do? Does sustaining mean agreeing with everything they say? Does it mean never criticizing them publicly even if I privately disagree? Does it mean mindlessly following them and never asking myself if they are right or wrong?

Brigham Young had this to say about that final proposition:

What a pity it would be if we were lead by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are lead by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders did they know for themselves by the revelations of Jesus that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves whether their leaders are walking in the path the lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually. (Brigham Young February 12, 1862, Deseret News.)

Amen Brother Brigham!

But when I agree with this statement of his, how do I square it with my disgust at his racism? Is he only a prophet when he agrees with me? Do I ever take counsel from prophets and change my own opinions?

I don’t know the answer to this. I truly don’t.

In the end, I’m left with saying that I think that we don’t allow prophets to be human enough. We see them as too far above us. And we see ourselves as unable to get the same kind of revelation for ourselves as prophets do.

But this kind of rigid hierarchy isn’t the way that I see God working. One of the best things about Mormonism is the idea that a young boy, untutored and unauthorized, walked into a grove one day and prayed and received revelation from God. If we ask wisdom, we can ask and receive. We don’t have to wait for other people to tell us what’s right. We all have the light of Christ. We’re all commanded to do good things without God commanding us to do them.

To me, that means that sustaining the prophet means helping them do better. It means criticizing when I am led by answers to my own prayer and by my conscience. It means hoping for better when I see mistakes. It means being patient sometimes. It means being loving to those I see as wrong as I think Christ would be. It means remaining part of Zion. I acknowledge that this isn’t what others think of as sustaining a prophet, but it’s the best I’ve got right now.