Continuing on a theme of July 13, 2021:
From Terryl and Fiona Givens. . . However, a different question emerges when it is the action, not the person, that is imperfect. If a bishop makes a decision without inspiration, are we bound to sustain the decision? The story is told of a Church official who returned from installing a new stake presidency. “Dad, do you brethren feel confident when you call a man as the stake president that he is the Lord’s man? the official’s son asked upon his father’s return home. “No, not always,” he replied. “But once we call him, he becomes the Lord’s man.”10 The answer disconcerts initially. Is this not hubris, to expect God’s sanction for a decision made in error? Perhaps. It is also possible that the reply reveals the only understanding of delegation that is viable.
If God honored only those decisions made in perfect accord with His perfect wisdom, then His purposes would require leaders who were utterly incapable of misconstruing His intention, who never missed hearing the still small voice, who were unerringly and unfailingly a perfect conduit for heaven’s inspiration. And it would render the principle of delegation inoperative. The Pharaoh didn’t say to Joseph, your authority extends as far as you anticipate perfectly what I would do in every instance. He gave Joseph his ring. . . . after calling Joseph Smith to his mission, the Lord didn’t say, I will stand by you as long as you never err in judgment. He said, “Thou wast called and chosen. . . . Devote all thy service in Zion; and . . . lo, I am with thee, even unto the end.”11
So, what does it mean for us devoted disciples of the living God? In Farrer’s opinion, God “does not promise [Peter, or Joseph] infallible correctness in reproducing on earth the eternal decrees of heaven. He promises that the decisions he makes below will be sanctioned from above.”12 In that view, if delegation has any meaning at all, then God is as good as His word. He honors the words and actions of His servants, sincerely executed on His behalf. Here Farrer gives an interesting reading of Christ’s words to Peter, that what His servant binds on earth, will (then and therefore) be bound in heaven. The words are God’s promise to give his divine weight of authority to the principle of delegation, to stand surety for the leaders He entrusts.
It is at this point that the hard cases erupt into the conversation. Just how far will the Lord go in allowing a delegated authority to err? We sometimes interpret divine providence as a precisely detailed and flawlessly executed game plan. Farrer warned against the mistake of assuming “a perfect conformity of Peter’s [or the prophet’s] decision with a foreordaining will of God, conceived as a creative blueprint or Platonic idea, which Peter [or the prophet’s] faithfully copies.”13 The Church moved to make its members expectations in this regard more realistic when it published the sobering opinion of B.H. Roberts: “I think it is a reasonable conclusion to say that constant , never-varying inspiration is not a factor in the administration of the affairs even of the Church; not even good men, no, not though they be prophets or high officials of the Church, are at all times and in all things inspired of God.”14 In other words, to put it starkly, God really means it when He delegates His authority to men and women—and expects them to use their wisdom and judgment in executing his will.~Terryl Givens, Fiona Givens, The Crucible of Doubt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 75-76
