Jump to content
changed

Fallibility within the church

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Changed highlighted some of the mistakes these men have made over the years and there isn't an infallible way to determine when these men are being fallible and making their mistakes, big and small. 

....which itself implies that you think that infallibility could in principle "exist".

Not exactly a Pragmatic view

Fallibility and infallibility and what defines a "mistake" are in the eyes of the beholder.

Best wishes on your demands for absolute certainty in life

One picks what seems best, and if it doesn't work, one tries something else.  The first choice even if it doesn't work is not necessarily a "mistake"- human beings learn by trial and error.  You like science?  THAT is science.

Edison comes to mind.

It's all in the attitude.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

....which itself implies that you think that infallibility could in principle "exist".

Not exactly a Pragmatic view

Fallibility and infallibility and what defines a "mistake" are in the eyes of the beholder.

Best wishes on your demands for absolute certainty in life

One picks what seems best, and if it doesn't work, one tries something else.  The first choice even if it doesn't work is not necessarily a "mistake"- human beings learn by trial and error.  You like science?  THAT is science.

Edison comes to mind.

It's all in the attitude.

 

That doesnt seem like something that will sell. Why mormonism? Why sacrifice for uncertainty? I wonder what the brethren think of your squishy theory? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Exiled said:

That doesnt seem like something that will sell. Why mormonism? Why sacrifice for uncertainty? I wonder what the brethren think of your squishy theory? 

What, the scientific method doesn't work?

Well study it out in your mind and make a decision and see if it works 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

This topic will probably be resurrected in a year, and the faithful LDS will admit their leaders are fallible, but be hesitant to admit to specific mistakes.

Critics will try to trap the faithful LDS into admitting a specific mistake, then claim that particular mistake was too big for even a fallible leader.

Here's the real deal IMO: Most faithful LDS admit the leaders are fallible, but act like they're infallible, especially the FP & Q12.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Thinking said:

This topic will probably be resurrected in a year, and the faithful LDS will admit their leaders are fallible, but be hesitant to admit to specific mistakes.

Critics will try to trap the faithful LDS into admitting a specific mistake, then claim that particular mistake was too big for even a fallible leader.

Here's the real deal IMO: Most faithful LDS admit the leaders are fallible, but act like they're infallible, especially the FP & Q12.

If that is so then it is ironic, since what the brethren tell us is to get our own testimonies for every principle.

I think you are out of touch with the real church as it is today.

You sound straight out of the 1950's and the days of Mormon Doctrine erroneously making the rules.  That all was a sad chapter.

Probably it's the Utah factor in action again.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Thinking said:

This topic will probably be resurrected in a year, and the faithful LDS will admit their leaders are fallible, but be hesitant to admit to specific mistakes.

Critics will try to trap the faithful LDS into admitting a specific mistake, then claim that particular mistake was too big for even a fallible leader.

Here's the real deal IMO: Most faithful LDS admit the leaders are fallible, but act like they're infallible, especially the FP & Q12.

I think the perception that someone is acting like the leaders are infallible is often the result of misunderstanding his reason and intent for acting on their counsel.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What, the scientific method doesn't work?

Well study it out in your mind and make a decision and see if it works 

Would you agree with to each his/her own?  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however, mormonism wants to claim it knows universal beauty when there isn't any evidence for it.  At least this is how the brethren who I know think.  How do you justify missionary work when you, yourself don't agree with universals? Just try it?  The problem with this is that it can be used to justify almost anything.  I had a good feeling about Mr. Madoff ..... I had a good feeling about Mr. Koerber ..... I have a good feeling about this or that organization despite the evidence ....

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Thinking said:

This topic will probably be resurrected in a year, and the faithful LDS will admit their leaders are fallible, but be hesitant to admit to specific mistakes.

Critics will try to trap the faithful LDS into admitting a specific mistake, then claim that particular mistake was too big for even a fallible leader.

Here's the real deal IMO: Most faithful LDS admit the leaders are fallible, but act like they're infallible, especially the FP & Q12.

This is how it is.  I don't know why some just won't admit it.  The FP & Q12 want to continue with this charade because they continually stress obedience to their interpretation of what God is.  They believe that only through strict obedience, as they define it, can one "make" it to wherever.  Yet, they make huge mistakes at times and look all too human.  So, how can belief in their counsel be maintained, given the obvious mistakes that were made?  Well, infallibility exists in the present and as pronouncements are made and demands of obedience are companions thereto.  Infallibility exists until it doesn't.  Demands are also made to not question the brethren and blind obedience is implied.  Fallibility exists only when looking backward.  However, let's throw in a contradictory command to have the individual member independently validate the supposed pronouncements from God's true messengers, while singing "follow the prophet."  This way blame can be foisted on the believer for actually believing in the first place.  You actually believed that God was behind the November 2015 policy?  Silly you, Pres. Nelson was merely speaking as a man when he proclaimed that God was behind the change. 

Edited by Exiled

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Would you agree with to each his/her own?  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however, mormonism wants to claim it knows universal beauty when there isn't any evidence for it.  At least this is how the brethren who I know think.  How do you justify missionary work when you, yourself don't agree with universals? Just try it?  The problem with this is that it can be used to justify almost anything.  I had a good feeling about Mr. Madoff ..... I had a good feeling about Mr. Koerber ..... I have a good feeling about this or that organization despite the evidence ....

Huh?

The "evidence" produces the feeling, and what keeps you here is your perception of what you call the evidence.

Your feelings expressed on this board are palpably clear which come from what you perceive as the evidence.

As always it's all in one's perception and you are no exception.

 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

This is how it is

Ah yes, the One source of absolute truth in the universe, delivering it right here before us! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

As to how far I would trust leadership, I would be more likely to trust a local unpaid, volunteer leader, meaning his motives, than I would any GA, especially the top 15, because the GA's are paid and absolutely unapologetic about the non transparency of their compensation. 

 

The GA's practice unadulterated priestcraft in our faces. They cannot and obviously SHOULD not be trusted by anyone but knaves.

Share this post


Link to post

Catholics will tell you the pope is infallible, but nobody believes it.

Mormons say their president is fallible, but nobody believes it.

 

The most abused truth by unscrupulous men: DC 1:38.

Share this post


Link to post

The differing statements from one prophet to the other that contradict each of their own doctrine at that time. How can a God tell these men two different things, that's why I have trouble believing in their words at times. Recent is Pres. Nelson and the switch with changing back the Nov. '15 policy. Post image

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...