From Kent. . . I have used an asterisk here. See conclusion.
From Terryl and Fiona Givens book ‘The Crucible of Doubt:’
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints describe priesthood as the authority to act in God’s name. But they often fail to plumb the potentially vexing implications of that principle. Authority is the source of delegation, delegation involves humans, humans entail error, and error in the context of authority creates conflict and tension. These stresses, which involve fallibility in conduct as well as in words, can be a challenge to the most faithful. Imperfect actions can be personally devastating. Knowing in theory that even those in authority over us will succumb to the same flaws and weaknesses under which we also labor does little to mitigate the pain when we suffer from poor judgement and downright unrighteousness. Teachings that seem to bear the stamp of divine authority and later are declared to be in error are even more challenging to faith.
Austin Farrer, the great Anglican churchman beloved of C. S. Lewis often quoted by Elder Neal Maxwell, wrote an essay on “Infallibility and Historical Tradition.” Farrer’s effort to balance God’s divine purposes with the imperfection of His human instruments suggest one way members might think about faith wrenching practices. . . . and teachings that the Church has abandoned but not fully explained. . . . Practices, in other words, that challenge and try one’s faith; teachings whose status as eternal truth is either disconcerting, questionable, or now denied. Here is what Farrer said: “Facts are not determined by authority. Authority can make law to be law; authority cannot make facts to be facts.”5 (Or as Henry Eyring once quoted his father as saying, “in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true.”6)
What does it mean for us if God’s anointed leader propounds what is an error? What does it mean for the truthfulness of the Church, for out duty as members and as Christian disciples? Farrer continues his meditation on this subject with a discussion of the Lord’s meaning when he promised Peter that whatsoever he would bind on earth would be bound in heaven. Though he doesn’t use the kind of vocabulary members often employ, we might think of what Farrer says in terms of Priesthood delegation of authority. “If Peter and his colleagues make law in employing the Lord’s precepts, . . . the law is the law of Christ’s Church, the best (if you will) that God’s Spirit can make with human instruments there and then, and, as such, to be obeyed as the will of God Himself. But to call Peter infallible in this connection is to misplace an epithet.”7
This is a subtle point, but one with profoundly important implications. Delegation is a sobering, even terrifying gesture on God’s part. To delegate or to deputize, both mean that the person receiving that authority has something like God’s power of attorney; the person’s acts, within circumscribed limits, carry the weight of efficacy of God’s own acts. But surely no human can act with the wisdom, the perfect judgment, the infallibility of God. Precisely so. And if delegation is a real principle—if God really does endow mortals with the authority to act in His place and with His authority, even while he knows they will not act with infallible judgment—then it becomes clear why God is asking us to receive the words of the prophet “as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.“8 Indeed, the counsel was part of the first revelation God gave to the newly organized church in this dispensation, which should give the warning primacy among God’s many counsels. Clearly, the Lord can delegate his authority to a human without any assumption that said human will always exercise that authority in perfect with God’s authority to act in his name will, even with the best of intentions and efforts, make mistakes. God has already anticipated the need to overlook His prophets’ human weaknesses; hence His admonition on the day of the Church’s very founding. And so did Joseph himself remind his people: “if they would bear with my infirmities . . . I would likewise bear with their infirmities,” he said.9 ~Terryl Givens, Fiona Givens, The Crucible of Doubt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 73-75
Personal note from Kent. . . . I have used an asterisk * here because the problems that arise, talked about above and, no doubt, of concern in many Christian (and non Christian) congregations often ride “rough shod” on individuals and many of the faithful. We are all exposed to human error from those we sustain as our leaders. On a personal basis, such errors have come from me. . . . which I am not proud of.
