15th in a seriesWhat are the consequences of not following a prophet or for disagreeing (publicly or privately) with statements made by a prophet?It's

important to reiterate that prophets may speak about historical,

scientific, or other issues that really have little if any bearing on

the salvation of souls. In some cases they may express matters of

opinion or share insights from their own gospel study and spiritual

knowledge. They can also speak the word of God. If we fail to seek our

own testimonies and therefore fail to heed the God-given counsel of the

prophets, we are the ones who will miss out on the blessings.But

what if, after praying for guidance and confirmation, our own personal

views diverge with a particular teaching of the prophet or church

policy? To quote again a statement made by Joseph F. Smith (as

originally quoted in part 2):"[Members]

are given the largest possible latitude for their convictions, and if a

man rejects a message that I may give to him but is still moral and

believes in the main principles of the gospel and desires to continue

in his membership in the church, he is permitted to remain."...so

long as a man believes in God and has a little faith in the church

organization, we nurture and aid that person to continue faithfully as

a member of the Church though he may not believe all that is revealed"

(Reed Smoot Hearings, 1:97-98)We can disagree. We are not asked

to follow blindly. We are not punished for rejecting something that

runs contrary to our personal conscience or testimony (although we will

forfeit blessings if the things we reject come from God). We are,

however, asked to live by certain principles, especially if we have church callings or wish to attend the temple. While the things we

believe are strictly personal, behavior must — at least to a degree —

conform to a pattern expected from members. Not living some of the

principles will naturally cause some friction.Throughout LDS

history there have been members (and, at times, other general authorities) who have disagreed with some church leader on gospel,

historical, or political issues, or even in the interpretation of

certain verses of scriptures. Typically, there is no church discipline

for these dissenting views. In regards to church membership, the

institutional church is typically more concerned with orthopraxy (right living) than orthodoxy (right belief).Some

people — especially critics — claim that the church punishes those

who disagree with the prophets. This claim, however, is for the most

part, untrue.In a 1993 October general conference address,

President James E. Faust said that free discussion and expression are

encouraged in the church, but should obviously operate within limits.

As an example of those limits he repeated a story told in 1869 by Elder

George Q. Cannon:"A friend ... wished to know whether we ...

considered an honest difference of opinion between a member of the church and the authorities of the church was apostasy. ... We replied

that ... we could conceive of a man honestly differing in opinion from

the authorities of the church and yet not be an apostate; but we could

not conceive of a man publishing these differences of opinion and

seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce them

upon the people to produce division and strife and to place the acts

and counsels of the Authorities of the church, if possible, in a wrong

light, and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we

understood the term" (Gospel Truth, 2:276-77).This doesn't

mean that we can't publicly discuss differences of opinion on issues

where there is no revealed doctrine (such as Book of Mormon geography,

which scrolls relate to the Book of Abraham, etc.). It does mean,

however, that those members who become vocal critics of church and

speak out against the leadership, foundational events in LDS history,

LDS practices, or the scriptures, have (at times) been disciplined. It

is one thing to disagree with the prophet concerning a policy or the

interpretation of a passage in the Bible, it's another matter to

publicly undermine the prophet or church leadership, or to claim that

Book of Mormon is fictional, or that Joseph Smith never saw the Savior.With

the recognition that prophets are fallible should come the recognition

that we are also fallible. If prophets can get some things wrong, so

can we. If we strongly disagree with a policy, counsel, or scriptural

interpretation, we can privately voice our opinions or decide not to

View Comments

follow the counsel or further promulgate the interpretation. We should

not, however, lift our hearts in pride, thinking that we are

infallible, and insist that others follow our beliefs instead of the

prophet.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.