When changes are made in secular society, the reason are usually forthright and obvious. Slavery is abolished: We were racist. Women get the right to vote: we were sexist. Gay marriage approved: we were homophobic.
But what happens when a church that claims that God is directing its every move, that God wakes up its leader in the middle of the night to to tell him he needs to change the name of the church, makes changes that make God look bad?
A recent example is God changing his mind about women being witnesses of ordinances. Last week they were incapable of making sure a toe did not stick up during a baptism, this week they are. Now if this was a secular decision, it would be that we were just clinging to sexist traditions of a patriarchal society. But how does one explain this in a religious context? Did God change his mind? Were the leaders wrong for 180 years, clinging to ” sexist traditions of a patriarchal society “? But if they were wrong here, what else have they got wrong?
Probably the most glaring example of throwing God under the bus is the implementation and then rescinding of the POX. Our leaders told us both the POX and “de-POX” was revelation. Is God really that fickle? Or did our leaders get it wrong, and after three years righted the wrong?
This of course is a catch 22 for the leaders of the Church. If they admit that they sometimes make mistakes, the members lose faith and wonder which things they are mistaken in. But if everything is guided by God, then He becomes the bad guy.
I believe the answer is for our leaders (Q15) to start a gentle pull back from the idea that God is intimately involved in the direction of the Church. How about this: the church is guided by honest men (and one day women) trying to do their best, and God watches over them, letting them make mistakes, giving them a slight nudge, sometimes by outer forces [1], when needed.
There is really nothing that earth shattering about the above recommendation, and a few of the brethren and even said as much, but then it is countered with stories of our leaders getting revelation directly from God, in the temple, or in the middle of the night.
Let me end with a story about how the church could solve this problem by following the example of Boyd K Packer. In the late 1980s I was in a Priesthood Leadership meeting with him in Santa Monica California. He told us about receiving revelation. He said he had NEVER seen an angelic person, he had NEVER heard an audible voice, and he didn’t know of any of his fellow apostles that had either. He said he just felt good about a decision, and that was God giving him confirmation, but sometimes he got it wrong. What if all the Q15 could be as forthright as Elder Packer was 30 years ago?
[1] Civil rights movement; priesthood available to all worthy males. Polygamy outlawed; 1890 and 1904 proclamation. Former bishop asks for protection of the children in youth interviews; new rules that lets parents accompany their children.
Wheat & Tares 
I really think the leaders credibility would be increased if they were honest with us about what version of revelation or inspiration applies to a particular statement. There are references to revelatory process, applying to the Nelson changes. None of them require Gods intervention.
It may be a cultural thing but I also have a problem with the number of conference speakers who find it necessary to say the love pres Nelson. Really?
Every time I’ve seen “God thrown under the bus” it parses down to “God suffered this because of the hardness of your hearts” (think of Christ explaining doctrine to the Pharisees with that exact line.
It condemns us more than anything else. We just forget to see it that way.
So “we saw through a glass darkly and fumbled our way along, refining as we went and limited by your and our sins” is the sort of thing I’d take away from studying prophets and revelation in the Old and New Testament.
The other thing I take away is that we need to fumble along with them. With kindness, remembering that God requires an answer from them.
https://biblehub.com/hebrews/13-17.htm
BKP “said he just felt good about a decision, and that was God giving him confirmation, but sometimes he got it wrong.”
Does this differ in any way from anyone simply making a decision one “just [feels] good about” and then attributing the good feeling to God (rather than to seratonin, other neurotransmitters, hormones, or one’s own overconfidence) until events show it to have been a poor decision? If it doesn’t differ, is the attribution prideful or an attempt to evade responsibility?
I suspect that the list reported in the post (seeing an angelic person, hearing an audible voice, and just feeling good about a decision) does not include all possible forms of divine revelation.
And then there is this: “The Lord has a way of pouring pure intelligence into our minds to prompt us, to guide us, to teach us, to warn us. You can know the things you need to know instantly! ….Some answers will come from reading the scriptures, some from hearing speakers. And, occasionally, when it is important, some will come by very direct and powerful inspiration. The promptings will be clear and unmistakable….
As an Apostle I listen now to the same inspiration, coming from the same source, in the same way, that I listened to as a boy. The signal is much clearer now. ” (Boyd K Packer, October 1979, “Prayers and Answers,” Ensign, Nov. 1979, p. 20) which doesn’t necessarily refer to decision making at all.
It would seem neither BKP statement is complete as to his understanding — or did his understanding change in the next 10 years after 1979? I wonder how “just feeling good about a decision” and “very direct and powerful inspiration” differ in BKP’s understanding. I may have experienced both, but neither is an adequate description of the “impressions” I wake up with in the middle of the night.
I have not been able to find a claim that the “de-POX” was a matter of revelation. The closest I have found is the FP’s statement that “These policy changes come after an extended period of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and after fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord on these matters.” That statement seems to stop a bit short of a claim of revelation, but it may represent a decision that the FP “just felt good about”.
Bishop Bill, I think your suggestion is a good one.The problem is the geriatric society in SLC who run the organization. First point, you mention a talk by Packer where he was refreshingly honesty and yet that same man gave a talk on this subject in conference where he was very vague on the situation.I would not call that talk an exercise in honesty.Second point, is whenever they talk about policies regarding LGBTQ people, they say it is revelation. So yes, good suggestions but the problem is the folks at the top. Will they listen and change?? Based on experience, only kicking and screaming the entire time.
The POX was claimed to be a revelation. What does that mean if the de-POX was not a revelation? Can the Q15 simply call a revelation “policy” and change it? Or was the original simply a policy that was called a “revelation ” to give it added impact? To me it is a mass of confusion.
JR, these are the words of Pres Nelson on how the POX came to be: And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation.” Then if as Dark traveler said, they changed the “mind and will of the Lord” in the De-POX without revelation, there is a problem. Explanation could be that they were wrong in the first place, and did not really follow the mind and will of the Lord. The 2nd explanation is that the Lord changed his mind.
Why can’t our leaders just say they love us, care about us, and are doing their best to execute policies and practices in the Church that are in the best interests of the organization and its members? And admit that sometimes these policies have to be modified and adjusted given the needs of the members and the organization. They could even claim to feel “inspired” to make these policies.
Most members, even the progressive types, would accept all of this at face value and would allow for some “error” here and there. It’s when they claim “revelation”, “revelatory process”, “God’s will”, etc. that some of us feel very uncomfortable. I think they use these terms to quell dissent but it actually causes more harm than good when members stop believing that these policies are the result of what they claim: revelation from God.
Please, just be more transparent and authentic. That will INCREASE, not DECREASE, your legitimacy.
Dark Traveler, As nearly as I can tell (and Greg Prince’s research reflected in his recent book would seem to support this — as far as it goes), the Q15 did not call the POX a revelation. That was then President-of-the-Q12 that did that without the agreement of the rest of the Q15 to that characterization and without any public confirmation from President Monson that he had received any such revelation. I cannot find any public record of any of the rest of the Q15 claiming such a spiritual confirmation or that it was a revelation. Maybe someone else can.
Yes, Bishop Bill, there is a problem — a “mass of confusion” as to what is meant by “revelation” and about Church leaders’ sometimes perception of the the “mind and will of the Lord” — mistaken or not.. In this case, it appears that the problem was RMN speaking out of turn in an effort to quell dissent without having his remarks cleared by the Q15. Since the Brethren don’t want to acknowledge that (it would upset a lot of people), they have couched the de-POX in terms of a decision after prayer seeking the Lord’s will. That can be understood as revelation or as a good-hearted, thoughtful decision about which they felt good for whatever reason.
The common talk now is about “impressions” as if they were regularly of divine origin and understood in a way entirely consistent with divine will, unaffected by personal interests, concerns, or culture. But “impressions” can have quite a variety of causes.
For some, it would be better for our leaders to simply and directly acknowledge a mistake. Mistakes happen.
In 2015, one reported comment about the POX was: “After stepping in fresh ordure, it’s best to scrape it off your boots before it hardens.” That could have been done in less than 3 1/2 years but for that unfortunate January 2016 speech.
The more I read the words of church leaders the more I see them readily acknowledge human weakness. Although they may be less inclined to admit it can happen collectively, I think the implication is there.
Admittedly, although I may have an overactive imagination, I think the “both” option with respect to implementation and revocation is right more often than we might think. I understand the POX hurt a lot of people. I really do. I understand a good number of people probably left the Church because of it. At the same time, I was surprised by some of the people I met who essentially re-evaluated their larger, overall testimony and in the end became more converted once their prayerful introspection was completed. This wasn’t a follow a “Follow the brethren or else . . . ” mentality, but a sincere desire to do what’s right and follow truth. We hear a lot about fence sitters who left with implementation of the policy. We don’t hear a lot about those who went the other direction. I suspect this group might be larger than we realize despite the lack of attention it gets in the bloggernacle. That’s not to mention the generations that may have missed out on the Gospel if not for the decision to stay. Is is possible the Lord would do something of this extreme as a sifting of sorts? Maybe. There are some pretty extreme examples in the scriptures.
Then again, as one who has had a witness that the Lord really does lead this Church, but likely often allows leadership an “autopilot” mode, I suppose it really is possible the autopilot temporarily got stuck, and the Lord had to make a course correction. As long as proper maintenance is completed, I’m confident in arriving at the proper destination.
The notion that change is proof of a mistake demonstrates a remarkably superficial understanding of the gospel and the concept of revelation.
Hmmmm, Eli, your comment kind of worries me. I have lived through sever of these times that the brethren throw God under the bus to protect the illusion of their infallibility. I have been a bit of a doubter ever since I first heard stories of polygamy and stories of Joseph Smith that just felt off to me. Over time, I have learned to trust my own conscience above the assurances of the brethren that they will never lead us astray. If that gift that Eve gave us, to know good from evil, tells me something is not good, I have learned that knowledge is correct. I have yet to be wrong when my conscience disagrees with the brethren.
Sometimes it has been hard to disagree with the brethren and I got into all kinds of trouble for being open that the priesthood/temple ban was racist and not from any God I wanted to worship..
But if we are to grow to be like God, to perhaps become Gods in our own right, shouldn’t we be able to know good from evil for ourselves and not lean on anyone else? If we stay children, always obeying someone else, even if our own conscience says they are wrong, then how will we ever be like God. Just who tells God that something is right or wrong. Doesn’t he have to know for himself. If we constantly convince ourselves to “follow the brethren” even after we have a bad feeling about an idea when it is first introduced, then are we becoming more like our Father, or just more what the brethren want us to be.
I just don’t see how convincing oneself that the brethren are right and my gut reaction was wrong , is the grown up way to become like our Father or our Savior. And then once again, the brethren change their minds and my gut reaction was correct.
Anna,
Please don’t be worried. I do make an effort to know good from evil for myself and not lean on anyone else, with maybe the exception of the Holy Ghost. But if we are to grow to be like God, wouldn’t that also mean being able to recognize that God may know things we don’t, have a far greater reaching perspective than we do, and have an overall agenda to benefit the greatest amount of His children as possible that utilizes methods that, on the surface, may not initially make sense?
The most beautiful part is we don’t have to be content to stay in the dark. Heavenly Father welcomes us to know what He knows. And while it make take a lifetime or more to get some of those answers, I take comfort in knowing I can seek them.
I’m reminded of the three umpires: The first one says, “Some are strikes and some are balls. I call them as I see them.” The second one says, “Some are strikes and some are balls. I call them as they are.” The third says, “Some are strikes and some are balls – but they ain’t nothin’ ’til I call them .”
I think we get all three from the brethren, cloaked in “revelation”, and we don’t get the benefit of them telling us which is which. To me, the most dangerous are those so confident that they speak for God that anything they say is God’s Word. They wear “Pharoah’s ring”, and truly think and believe that, because of their position, anything they say will be ratified by God.
The most powerful and far-reaching personal revelation that I have ever had was “You are accountable to Me.” This in answer to my plaintive plea “I don’t want to be out of step with the Brethren.” I no longer fret about being out of step with anyone.
Totally agree with Anna. If we believe God wants one thing and the leaders are going in a different direction, do we have a moral responsibility to go with God or the bretheren. How do we learn moral judgement? By following?
Speaking of moral judgement, Climate change, increasing inequality, president being impeached, etc We were told a number of times to cut ourselve off from the world as much as possible.
I came away from the conference thinking how irrelavent the leaders are. Oaks and Nelson are choosing to continue fighting a battle they lost on gay marriage. There could have been talks addressing, even obliquely, some of the worlds real moral problems. Most Utah mormons voted for Trump who is removing efforts to combat climate change, and increasing inequality in America, and increasing the atmosphere of angst throughout the world, with trade wars, and real wars. No guidance at all from prophets for their followers on their responsibilities in the real world.
JR I was under the impression that RMN was speaking for the entire Q15. I may be wrong. If so, is it necessary for the entire Q15 to make the announcement, or may one member make a statement that they are all in agreement. Seems to just add confusion.
“There could have been talks addressing, even obliquely, some of the worlds real moral problems. ”
Like separating babies and children from their parent(s) and corrupt leaders turning a blind eye (or worse, in cahoots) with drug lords, resulting in murder and rampant poverty among citizens.
Leaders use the same imperfect communication system we all do to communicate with the almighty. Are they better at that communication than the average person or is it they just have an assignment/responsibility to direct the church?
I imagine I’ll have to go before the judgement bar one day. I don’t think being a blind follower is going to get us off the hook. ( We don’t accept that excuse from our kids).
Dark Traveler, Yes it does add to the confusion to have one of them presume to speak for all. And it is also contrary to Elder Anderson’s comment in General Conference that “The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk.” President Oaks quoted that with approval in this month’s Saturday morning session. It seems to some that in claiming that each of the Q15 felt a spiritual confirmation of a “revelation” to the Church President, RMN was trying to cast the POX in the same mold as what was reported by multiple apostles with respect to the 1978 revelation on the extension of priesthood and temple eligibility. Their sustaining of the POX attributed by someone to revelation to President Monson may have led RMN to believe that they had. But in view of the uproar in and out of the Church about the POX, the absence of any such claim of revelation by President Monson, the public silence of all but RMN on any such spiritual confirmation seems to function more as a denial than an agreement. (Of course, that’s a matter of interpretation based on inferences)
I think your impression is exactly what RMN intended in 2016. That doesn’t mean it is what any of the rest of the Q15 intended.
Perhaps the confusion is not as troubling to some of us old codgers who were accustomed to President Hugh B. Brown publicly disagreeing with Apostle Ezra Taft Benson. Looking back even further, public disagreements among the apostles were even more common. Such public disagreement is not currently in fashion, but even as late as 1990 President Hinckley gently and firmly publicly disagreed with RMN on the use of the nickname “Mormon.”
Silence can mean agreement. It can also mean disagreement. In this case, it seems to some to function as a rejection of the attempt to force the adoption of the POX into the mold of the 1978 revelation. That interpretation may be bolstered by the lack of any reiteration of the revelation claim as to the POX, even while possibly claiming a new revelation (or a prayerfully considered decision) to get rid of most of it. It also seems to be bolstered by the in-and-out-and-in-again-and finally-out treatment of the “revealed policy” claim in the seminary materials which weekend of revisions ended with it being out. But until they individually speak from presumably accurate memory of November 2015, I doubt that any of us have any business purporting to know of what the individual members of the Q15 did or didn’t have a spiritual confirmation. There is some evidence on which to base a tentative inference, but some of it is hearsay, some of it is not (the changes in seminary materials) and some of it is mere silence in the face of what might otherwise have been a duty to speak.
Maybe the Lord wants us to learn to deal with confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty.
“Maybe the Lord wants us to learn to deal with confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty.”
Well, didn’t it all start that way in the Garden of Eden?
Some members are still throwing God under the bus for the black priesthood/temple ban. And the leaders have yet to clear up that debacle. I’m not sure that God is responsible for the polygamy disaster. But we still have D&C 132. The leadership is hesitant to clean up past disasters. While creating new ones.
I have noticed there seems to be this idea for some that revelation and policy, or decisions about policy, are mutually exclusive. That’s not true at all. God can reveal doctrine and He can also reveal policy. D&C is full of policy instructions that were received by revelation. Changes in church policy, or church operations, or church procedures can come by way of revelation or the Q15 can make those changes without revelation. A policy change may be made without revelation and that policy may be changed again through revelation or vice versa, a policy change may be made through revelation and over time be changed again without revelation as circumstances change. And just because a policy, procedure, practice, or even an organizational arrangement is changed doesn’t mean that it was wrong to begin with. Any church policy, procedure, practice, or organizational structure should be considered temporary as any could be changed at any time as needed. Change doesn’t mean that something was wrong, it could mean that what worked in the past doesn’t work now or that we are now ready or capable of things that we weren’t ready or capable of in the past.
I will say this…Joseph Smith was a genius! He founded the church based on ‘continuing revelation.’ It was a brilliant and strategic move that provided a practically foolproof method of promoting his ever-changing theology. Subsequent leaders have used continuing revelation to justify their biases, even though history is complete enough to show they were incorrect (i.e. polygamy/priesthood ban). We see it at work today as the ‘will of the Lord,’ to control the membership and the direction of the organization. And yes, IMO the Lord gets thrown under the bus a lot in the Mormon Church!
A whole slate of dissidents who seem unaware of what Joseph Smith said about revelation: “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, `Thou shalt not kill;’ at another time He said, `Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted–by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.”
I’ve come to a place where I believe the early saints made worship too complicated – sort of like what Christ railed against in the scriptures. I really don’t care for the temple and it’s odd rituals anymore and very much question their validity. I believe the church has painted itself into a corner with these rituals because they only fit a certain narrative – a man being married to a woman (or several!). If God exists I believe he would truly love each of his offspring equally and not deny certain blessings to those that don’t fit a particular mold. The current narrative is so brutally painful to so many and it’s crushing my testimony. I truly wish our worship was more focused on drawing closer to God and his son and that heaven was attainable for all on a level playing field. For now I keep my recommend so as to not confuse family members but suspect this may be my last.
Nat Whilk, Yes, but what is any significant difference in circumstances relevant to the POX between November 2015 and April 2019?
Nat Whilk, are you aware the Joseph Smith quote you cite is from a letter he wrote to 19 year old Nancy Rigdon trying to gaslight and manipulate her, in the name of God, to be one of his polygamous wives?
Other excerpts from the letter include:
“Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”
“A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost.”
“This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end..”
“Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant”
Nancy Rigdon rejected Joseph Smith’s proposal and immoral justifications. The church needs more Nancy Rigdons.
I’ve been discussing this very question with my teachers lately!
I can only think of a few scenarios that explain reversals like the priesthood ban that would make sense within a framework of the church still being true. But I’m not clear on which, if any, are correct:
1) Heavenly Father changes his mind. There’s something appealing about this theory. Most of Christendom adopts the idea that God is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” The Mormon God has always struck me as a little more capricious. And, let’s be honest, if you were God, wouldn’t you sometimes be unable to resist the temptation to just mess with people?? “Ok…..everybody marry other people’s wives! And….now….everybody stop!”
A more flattering version of this theory would have Heavenly Father changing things to serve some higher purpose. The priesthood ban or polygamy might seem cruel and capricious to us, but God is playing the long game. I think this is probably often true, but there’s a danger when we humans start chalking things up to that. Because it allows us to do cruel and sinful things, only to shrug and claim that God must have some higher purpose—when it’s really just us causing suffering.
2) Prophets are flawed, and sometimes they mishear God. Ongoing revelation provides a form of collective self-correction. This one seems the most reasonable to me, but I can’t pin anybody down on it. They’ll say, “Well, yes, that’s true,” but then I can’t get any answer as to how the current prophet might then be mishearing some things or what we should do with that, such as pray about things ourselves and seek our own answers if we’re not sure. It’s ok to say PAST prophets were wrong, but the current one always has to be right—and that just doesn’t make any logical sense.
In the same vein, prophets aren’t without sin and it strains credibility to think they’ve never been tempted to use their position for personal gain and claim it was God speaking when they know it wasn’t. I wouldn’t say that one out loud in church, but wouldn’t that be a rather obvious form of unrighteous dominion? I’m sure I could at least make a case for Biblical precedent.
3) God, being an exalted man himself, is also continually progressing, and changes his mind as he becomes more perfect. (Is this heretical from an LDS standpoint? I hope it’s not offensive!) It would essentially mean that God isn’t perfect, and revelation is self-correcting because God is self-correcting. Of course, the fact that God just so happened to become less racist at the same time as the US Civil Rights Movement does make it a little too coincidental to take seriously, but there is something beautiful about the idea of God progressing and actually being influenced by his own creation.
But I can’t get a straight answer on this one. Just that “policies” can change, but “doctrines” can’t, and so each of those changes gets scuttled into the “policy” category without any clear definition of what’s a “doctrine” and what’s a “policy.” Brigham Young said the priesthood ban and ban on interracial marriage “shall always be so.” That sure sounds like a doctrine! Polygamy is written into the scriptures—sure sounds like a doctrine! Yet the Family Proclamation gets treated like doctrine, when isn’t it explicitly not doctrine?
I don’t get it. I don’t see why it’s a big deal to just admit that revelation comes through flawed human beings and sometimes we don’t hear what God is trying to tell us, even when we’re sincerely listening. I never thought of it as throwing God under the bus before, but that’s a very apt description!
Investi-Jesse,
Numbers 1 and 3 sound like a very fickle god to me. When it comes to personality, I feel like exalted beings are perfect by the time they’re allowed to have worlds of their own. We teach eternal progression, but at that point, I think progression comes mainly in the form of their posterity.
I can think of a variation of number 2 (and I suppose the second half of your number 1). You mention the Priesthood ban scenario. Sometimes I think it’s possible for prophets to do the right thing but for the wrong reasons. I can think of a scenario or two. For the purpose of discussion, it assumes a couple of truths I hold dear to me.
1. God does communicate to his prophets, largely on his terms, and reveals as much or as little as he desires, with as much or as little reasoning explained as he sees fit. I realize many readers on this blog feel differently (I’m sure it’s an occasional source of frustration in approaching subjects brought up here, for all involved).
2. Racism is utterly wrong and God is no respecter of persons. Based on how I was raised, I thought this was a universal truth among members of the church, but I do occasionally encounter an older member here and there who feels differently.
I see two possibilities with these in mind. One is that Brigham Young initiated the ban due to his own prejudices, and when the Lord didn’t call him out on it he figured it was the right thing to do. Another is that the Lord did encourage him to institute it, but offered no direct reason, allowing Brigham Young to offer his own explanations, however false they might be.
But why would the Lord allow a ban? This is where my (overactive?) imagination comes in. Lets pretend the early Church proselytes to African Americans with a zeal like no other. Not only that, but through teachings of the Church an African American member is allowed many, many more privileges than would normally be allowed in society at the time. In fact, with polygamy, you might even have one black man married to multiple white women. Could that cause quite an uproar? Maybe even enough for mobs to follow the Saints all the way to Utah and destroy the Church as we know it?
What if we flooded Africa with as many missionaries as we could early on? I could see the Church spreading like wildfire. What if, due to lack of communication, missionaries erroneously start preaching in the muslim countries to the north? What if this causes muslims to retaliate and push southward, effectively making Africa a Muslim continent before Christianity has a chance to get any real root there? What if, because of this, no nation in Africa becomes open to the Gospel until well past 1978?
Do the situations above seem rather unlikely? As a mortal who does not have all things present before me, I’d readily concede they do.
Do they seem any more unlikely than the idea that a Savior of mankind who came down and personally told Joseph Smith not to join a church is somehow incapable of coming back down, looking the prophet in the eyes, and saying “Hey Brigham, racism is wrong!”?
I really don’t think so. And nothing in these hypothetical scenarios involves throwing God under the bus. And if God felt that was the case, I’m not sure what’s stopping him from letting leadership know