How Can I Tell if a Quote From a General Authority is Authoritative?

One of the biggest mistakes members make with personal revelation is using their personal revelation to judge prophetic statements. Rather than using prophetic statements to authenticate their personal revelation. As God is a God of order and so is His Spirit: True revelation from God can be authenticated by comparing it to revealed truth found in the scriptures and teachings of the prophets. President Henry B. Eyring taught this in the October 2021 General Conference, “It is crucial that any personal revelation we feel we have received be consonant with the teachings of the Lord and His prophets.”

But there is one massive question/issue that arises with authenticating our personal revelation by comparing it to words of the prophets: “How can I tell if the quotes from a general authority I’ve found are authoritative and therefore I can authenticate my personal revelation by comparing the two?”

There are 5 simple questions to ask yourself in the investigation process of a quote or story. 1st. Does this quote/story pass the sniff test? 2nd. What is the source? 3rd. What is the context? 4th. Has anyone else said something similar? 5th. Does it pass the current prophet test? So let’s dive into each question.

1st. Does this quote/story pass the sniff test?

Before you even start looking into a quote/story ask yourself, does it pass the sniff test? IE, does this even make basic sense? Oftentimes people make exuberant claims that are flatly ridiculous. And the more you dive into their claims the more you realize they are shaky at best, or baseless.

For example, I recently shared the talk, “Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet” on my Facebook page, a lot of Latter-day Saints were upset that President Benson’s talk refuted common rationalizations on disobedience. One person claimed, “Oh President Benson was rebuked for this by President Kimball and the 12, you should not share this talk.” I said that does not make any sense. This talk was delivered in February of 1980, and you claim he was rebuked for it? Then why did it get reprinted in the June 1981 Ensign as the First Presidency Message??” Their claims were not passing the sniff test.

Their reply? That President Kimball’s health was failing in 1981 and Benson got the Ensign to reshare the talk as the First Presidency message without permission… So they wanted me to believe that President Benson disobeyed the Prophet, circumvented the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, hijacked the First Presidency’s monthly message, all to teach members to “Follow the Prophet, your salvation depends on it”???

It failed the sniff test. But it also failed other tests too. After looking into their claims more, which you should always do with things that fail the sniff test, I found some other interesting facts. Their claims are from a story that comes from a book written 20 years after the death of President Kimball claiming that this rebuke happened. Yet the Church has kept the talk on its website, it was not only reshared as the First Presidency message but also quoted, all 14 points, in conference talks since the alleged ‘rebuking’ (See “Obedience to the Prophets“, “Our Very Survival“) and the manual for Teachings of the Presidents of the Church for President Benson quotes his talk (See Chapter 11 Follow the Living Prophet.) Could President Kimball have talked to President Benson about this devotional? It is totally possible. But there is no authoritative evidence that he was rebuked and that the talk is false.

2nd. What is the source?

The source of quotes matter. Because not all statements are made equal. Unauthoritative sources are ones where people are sharing stories from other people, “My friend read XY or Z” or “Someone at a Stake Conference said that Elder Christofferson said XY or Z” Hearsay quotes should not be relied on or shared. Whenever someone shares a quote I simply plug in a string of keywords into Google to either verify their citation is correct or to find the source if the citation was lacking.

Once you find/confirm the source there are a few more steps. Yes, President Benson might have said something, but what is the setting? Because we know that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as a prophet, evaluating the setting is vital.

• Conference Reports (The official record of general conference).
  These are the safest source of authoritative quotes. All talks are reviewed by the correlating council before publishing.
  A great source for verifying old conference quotes is https://archive.org/details/conferencereport they have all the old conference reports on it.
• Official Church Statements (First Presidency Letters, Area Authority Letters, First Presidency Statements, Proclamations, etc).
  Excepting General Conference Reports, there is nothing more authoritative than these Official Church Statements.
• Official Church Publications (Manuals, magazines, pamphlets, brochures, statements to the news, or social media posts).
  These are reviewed for accuracy too and are safe sources, but be careful of quotes taken out context! Also, some articles have had corrections or have disclaimers to look out for! (The January 1978 Ensign has a disclaimer about the whole edition being suggestions and not binding practices about Sabbath worship).
• Other content on Gospel Library App.
  If it appears on the Gospel Library App or the Church Website the authenticity of the story or statement has often been verified by the Church history department. These can be considered safe.
• Devotionals/Speeches (Education Week, BYU Devotional, Firesides, etc).
  These are great sources of information but be careful to ensure the authenticity of the quote. Unless it was recorded, avoid sharing of 2nd hand accounts. Generally speaking, what is said here is considered safe when the Church’s websites reshare it and the text is available to search.
  *IF the devotional/speech was not republished they should be considered supplementary sources. Always ensure you have a primary source that teaches the same thing as a supplementary source.
• Books by General Authorities.
  These are not authoritative, they should not be dismissed as wrong, but they should be considered supplementary sources.
• Brigham Young Journal of Discourses.
  The Journal of Discourses are NOT authoritative. See this article in the Ensign explaining why. Any quotations from the Journal of Discourses should only be regarded as supplemental. This applies to a lot of early Church history. Often times things were written 2nd or 3rd hand, and sometimes decades after the fact.
• History of the Church and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
  With History of the Church, Keith Ericson at Education week explained that at the death of Joseph they only had up to 1838 done, and the rest was paused until they got to Utah and resumed work years later. He explained that they asked people what they remembered Joseph said or did to complete it. He advised that the authoritative source of Joseph would be Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith and to avoid History of the Church after 1838 or Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith as it cites History of the Church as its main source. See his book Real vs Rumor.

3rd. What is the context?

Often times context completely changes the quotation being shared. For example, I was reading a Scholarly article on JSTOR about President Benson being rebuked by the Brethren when it cited Hugh B. Brown in the April 1962 General Conference. The quote read,

“going about and calling everyone a communist who disagrees with his personal political bias. There is no excuse for members of this Church, especially men who hold the priesthood, to be opposing one another over communism.”

This article made it sound like Hugh B. Brown was defending communism and denouncing Benson. I thought that was an odd quote so I looked up the context. Hugh B. Brown delivered the following that this quote was taken out of:

Now, brethren, we who are assembled tonight here and in 320 other places should form a great bulwark against communism and its attendant evils. The efficiency of our opposition to them depends upon the way we honor our priesthood and place ourselves in a position to seek and obtain God’s help in fighting evil. Communism is of the devil. Communism started when the devil was cast out of heaven because of his rebelling against the will of his Father that men should have their free agency. Satan and his emissaries would rob men of their priceless freedom. We do not wish tonight to enter into a long discussion of this evil, but it is well that all men know that the Church and the leaders of the Church stand squarely against communism.

To emphasize this I refer to what President Grant, President Clark, and President McKay wrote sometime ago:

“The Church does not interfere, and has no intention of trying to interfere with the fullest and freest exercise of the political franchise of its members, under and within our Constitution. . . .

“But Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government, and it would be necessary to destroy our Government before Communism could be set up in the United States.”

I wish you would read the rest of it yourselves and see what the stand of the First Presidency was at that time, and I think I can authoritatively say to you that the position of the First Presidency has not changed since that time.

But, brethren, beware that you do not become extremists on either side. The degree of a man’s aversion to communism may not always be measured by the noise he makes in going about and calling everyone a communist who disagrees with his personal political bias. There is no excuse for members of this Church, especially men who hold the priesthood, to be opposing one another over communism; we are all unalterably opposed to it, but we must be united in our fight against it. Let us not undermine our government or accuse those who hold office of being soft on communism. Furthermore, our chapels and meetinghouses should not be made available to men who seek financial gain or political advantage by destroying faith in our elected officials under the guise of fighting communism. Let self-appointed protectors of our freedom finance their own schemes. We call upon the priesthood of the Church to stand together with a solid front against everything that would rob men of their God-given freedom.

President Hugh B. Brown, General Conference, April 1962

The context of Hugh B. Brown’s quote suddenly changes it’s meaning, and the insinuation that he was pro-communist is clearly exposed as a fabrication. Always read surrounding parts of a talk or verses to ensure context is not missing! Especially when you see ellipses! (ellipses are when a quote uses … to skip over words).

4th. Has anyone else said something similar?

In the Church, there is the law of witnesses. The Lord repeatedly teaches that truth shall be established by the mouth of two or three witnesses. (2 Cor. 13:1; see also Deut. 17:6; Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:15–16; John 8:12–29). So when you find an amazing quote, look for other quotes that teach the same thing. When you can’t find other quotes that teach the same principle, then you should avoid using only one witness to establish the truth.

D. Todd Christofferson addressed this topic in general conference when he taught, “It should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that ‘a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.'”

A great resource in finding quotes on a given topic is the Conference Corpus which allows you to search keywords from talks from the last 170 years!

5th. Does it pass the current prophet test?

The current prophet test is simple: does this quote align with the current prophet? Often people try to misquote dead prophets in an attempt to attack the living prophet. This is evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed! If someone is using a quote to attack the prophet they are misusing that quote. Spencer W. Kimball warned that “many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones.” (Instructor, 95:527.) Ezra Taft Benson declared, “Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.”

President Hartman Rector, Jr. one of the great general authorities of the Church declared the need to ensure we pass the current prophet test as well. He declared, “Oh, if we could only learn this lesson and look to his living prophet on earth! In this day and time, following the living prophet is the only way that we can follow the Lord God and do his will. You can’t do it by quoting the dead prophets or ignoring or throwing rocks at the living prophets. Following the prophet today, President [Russell M. Nelson], is the only real safety we can know in this time of decay.”

Bruce R. McConkie summarized the current prophet test and handled objections perfectly when he said:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

All Are Alike unto God, August 18, 1978

*An extremely important note about the current prophet test*

Some members twist the current prophet test and use it to throw away all the old prophets. They assume that if a prophet has not talked about something recently is must not be important. I get countless comments like, “That quote is from the Cold War, no one has said anything about that recent, stop sharing it!” Could you imagine if they said, “Stop quoting Samual the Lamanite! That is just anti-Gadianton war rhetoric and it was not repeated by 3rd Nephi, therefore it is not true!”

Their logic can be used to throw everything except the most recent teachings away. Elder David A. Bednar in a recent conference address denounced the notion that the current prophet needs to address a topic to make it relevant and referred to those who want things constantly repeated as foolish virgins! If the current prophet has not addressed a topic, then the most recent address on that topic is still the authoritative address on that topic! It does not matter if that address was given in 2002, 1982, 1942, or even 600 BC. Unless the current prophet has spoken to the subject at hand, we adhere to the most recent revelations on the topic.

Think of the gospel as a piano, and the prophet as the pianist with Jesus as the conductor. You would not stand up in the middle of the oratorio and declare “The pianist has not hit F# in the last two minutes. F# must be a false key!!! We need to stop using it forever!” That would be ludicrous! Just because the prophet has not played a key recently does not make it any less true or important in the gospel oratorio.

For a deeper dive on this gospel analogy and seeing how it applies to our current partisan divides see: Jesus is not a Republican or a Democrat, so stop trying to make him one!

Therefore what?

Now that you know the basics of how to discern what is authoritative vs non-authoritative you are prepared to use this information to authenticate your personal revelation. By comparing personal revelation that you believe is from God, against the revealed word that you know is from God you will be able to ensure your personal revelations are authentic. In closing, remember the words of Harold B. Lee who taught: “In secular as well as spiritual affairs, Saints may receive Divine guidance and revelation affecting themselves, but this does not convey authority to direct others, and is not to be accepted when contrary to Church covenants, doctrine or discipline, or to known facts, demonstrated truths, or good common sense.”