The LDS Church teaches that its top leaders are prophets, seers, and revelators; men who speak for God and whose guidance deserves trust, obedience, and moral authority. When serious problems arise in Church history, doctrine, or policy, the most common explanation offered is simple: prophets are fallible. But does that explanation actually resolve the issue? In this episode of Mormonism Live, we take a step back and examine what prophetic fallibility is being asked to accomplish, and whether it truly holds up under scrutiny.

We walk through multiple categories where prophetic authority is expected to function reliably and where the Church and its apologists claim fallibility resolves the concerns, including:

Using clear historical examples including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, modern prophets, and recent institutional decisions, we show how the same explanation is repeatedly used to absorb contradiction, reverse teachings, and excuse harm. Along the way, we ask the question that often goes unspoken: If prophets can confidently teach error, attribute it to God, and only later have it reclassified as opinion or mistake… how is anyone supposed to know when God is actually speaking? Fallibility may explain why mistakes happen — but it does not explain how members are meant to trust leaders in real time. Rather than attacking belief, this episode carefully examines whether the prophetic model itself functions as advertised — and what it means when authority becomes clear only in hindsight. This is not about expecting perfection. It’s about whether divine authority can be trusted to guide human lives safely, honestly, and consistently.

The post Does Prophetic Fallibility Solve the LDS Problem? appeared first on Mormon Discussion by Bill Reel.