Armand Mauss: 3 Unresolved LDS Historical Issues

[Obiwan]

So.... You are saying that someone isn't allowed to "malign" someone in the Church for something they say and do, simply because they do good things otherwise???

You still haven't even addressed what he said, and are instead focusing on "me".

Is what he said against the Church AND the Brethren "appropriate" or not??? Address the actual issue instead of the messengers.

Further, he is taking a "common" anti-mormon mantra and position against the Church.

Why is it that "I'm" the bad guy for defending the Church yet he's the Saint simply because he's a "known" scholar?

Why am I the bad guy when I point out Consig's anti-mormon positions that are harmful to the Church, or cause I point out these statements of Mauss's that are clearly against the Church. What about Grant Palmer? He's a Faithful mormon.... Yet, you wouldn't hesitate to be critical of some of his positions???

It's really simple to me.... You make a few wolfs statements, especially as a public figure, and you have the gal to call "me" the bad guy here??? HE'S the one being critical of the Church. I'm being critical of a man's statements.

Don't you think you have your "priority's" misplaced....??? I know you think all things and people even touched by FAIR is equivalent to Godhood apparently, but I call things as they are, not to be politically correct. And, I'm a 100% supporter of all things FAIR. But, that's doesn't mean I'm going to allow degrading statements towards the Church simply pass. You have another thing coming!

[Alf O'Mega]

Gordon B. Hinckley,

[Lamanite]

That doesn't answer the CFR. There's no rejection of the "curse of Cain" doctrine, just a broad injunction against racial slurs.

The Helen Whitney interviews aren't vehicles for declaring official doctrine, but even so, Elder Holland's rejection of "folklore" was mainly focused on rejecting the idea of questioning people's pre-mortal valiance. In any case, his position was pretty much what I said above: no justification for the ban is currently provided by official doctrine. That's a neutral position, not a rejection of the curse of Cain.

I'm still interested in where the Church has identified the curse of Cain as an incorrect doctrine in any official publication.

Perhaps you could read/re-read Edward Kimballs treatment of this subject in his Father's biography. Combine that with Mauss and Bush, and then follow it up with some select chapters from Adventures by Arrington, Rise by Prince, and McConkie in his Father's biography Lengthen. You can then use the Papers of Joseph Smith, RSR by Bushman, Words of Joseph Smith by Ehat, and Papers of Joseph Smith by Jessee to flesh out the Prophets feelings on the subject.

Then you might not be so flippant. There is no doctrinal basis for "curse of Cain."

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Avatar4321]

First, it seems like the applicable curse would be Ham's curse, not Cains.

Second, when you take out the emotional sentiment of the issues, there are a number of pro issues.

1) It prevented the Church from segregating in a time in America where Racism and segregation was rampant.

2) It kept the Church from doing intensive missionary work in many areas of Africa where Missionaries were seen as political pawns of colonialism and oppression. Allowing the Church to enter a generation after all the colonial upheavel when sentiments were more condusive for the growth of the Church there.

3) It tested the faith of all the members of the Church.

God doesn't think the way we do. He sees things from a much large perspective. He is trying to prepare us for what is coming. And He has a much longer term vision for it than we do.

You do realize that the Ban being lifted effects, not only everyone who lives now, but everyone who ever lived? There were time when the Gospel was taken from the Jews. There was a time that the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles. There was a time when the Priesthood was limited to a single tribe of Israelites. And other times it was taken to the Gentiles as well.

There were nearly 1700 years when the Priesthood and keys were not found on the earth at all. And even when He has it was restricted by lineage for thousands of years. You think restricting it by lineage for the first 150 years of this dispensation has any effect on the Eternal plans of God? Do you think He can't restrict it? The Lor dcould reveal tomorrow that the Priesthood would be restricted in this life to all people of Non-European descent. Will He? I highly doubt it. But can He? in a heart beat if He chose to. And who are we to oppose God's commands? He has promised that all who are worthy will recieve it since the beginning. But He never said all will recieve it at the same time and in the same circumstances.

Do we so quickly forget what the Lord says?

7 My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment;

8 And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes (D&C 121:7-

You think 150 years is a long time in the Eternal perspective? Or even 6000 years?

Or what about the what the Lord said elsewhere?

5 If thou art called to pass through tribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea;

6 If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garments, and shall say, My father, my father, why can

[Lamanite]

First, it seems like the applicable curse would be Ham's curse, not Cains.

Second, when you take out the emotional sentiment of the issues, there are a number of pro issues.

1) It prevented the Church from segregating in a time in America where Racism and segregation was rampant.

2) It kept the Church from doing intensive missionary work in many areas of Africa where Missionaries were seen as political pawns of colonialism and oppression. Allowing the Church to enter a generation after all the colonial upheavel when sentiments were more condusive for the growth of the Church there.

3) It tested the faith of all the members of the Church.

God doesn't think the way we do. He sees things from a much large perspective. He is trying to prepare us for what is coming. And He has a much longer term vision for it than we do.

You do realize that the Ban being lifted effects, not only everyone who lives now, but everyone who ever lived? There were time when the Gospel was taken from the Jews. There was a time that the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles. There was a time when the Priesthood was limited to a single tribe of Israelites. And other times it was taken to the Gentiles as well.

There were nearly 1700 years when the Priesthood and keys were not found on the earth at all. And even when He has it was restricted by lineage for thousands of years. You think restricting it by lineage for the first 150 years of this dispensation has any effect on the Eternal plans of God? Do you think He can't restrict it? The Lor dcould reveal tomorrow that the Priesthood would be restricted in this life to all people of Non-European descent. Will He? I highly doubt it. But can He? in a heart beat if He chose to. And who are we to oppose God's commands? He has promised that all who are worthy will recieve it since the beginning. But He never said all will recieve it at the same time and in the same circumstances.

Do we so quickly forget what the Lord says?

You think 150 years is a long time in the Eternal perspective? Or even 6000 years?

Or what about the what the Lord said elsewhere?

Why do people suffer in this life? Why do bad things happen to good people? How is those questions any different than the question why the Lord restricted the Priesthood to certain lineages?

You either have believe God or you don't. The idea that somehow His decisions are foolish because we don't always understand them is absurd to me. The idea that His decisions are wrong because for a short time period we might feel like we are unjustly kept from what we "deserve" is equally as absurd to me. God's promises have Eternal significances. His decrees have Eternal significances. Until you stop looking through the emotional cultural lens we've been conditioned to see through since early in our life from society and Try to look at things from an Eternal Perspective like God, you will not understand.

You could also believe that God looked down on the good men and women of the past and said with his loving omniscience "what are they thinking? This ban is one of the worst idea's ever! Good thing it won't wreck the Church entirely; it will roll forward despite some human error."

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Glenn101]

You could also believe that God looked down on the good men and women of the past and said with his loving omniscience "what are they thinking? This ban is one of the worst idea's ever! Good thing it won't wreck the Church entirely; it will roll forward despite some human error."

Big UP!

Lamanite

But isn't that why we have prophets at the head of the Church on earth to be the mouthpiece for God? Are you saying that God either (a) did not tell any of those prophets that it was wrong or that (b) He told them and they disobeyed or ignored the Lord's counsel?

Glenn

[Alf O'Mega]

Perhaps you could read/re-read Edward Kimballs treatment of this subject in his Father's biography. Combine that with Mauss and Bush, and then follow it up with some select chapters from Adventures by Arrington, Rise by Prince, and McConkie in his Father's biography Lengthen. You can then use the Papers of Joseph Smith, RSR by Bushman, Words of Joseph Smith by Ehat, and Papers of Joseph Smith by Jessee to flesh out the Prophets feelings on the subject.

Then you might not be so flippant. There is no doctrinal basis for "curse of Cain."

You're one of my favorites here, Sione. I'm sorry if I come across as flippant on this subject. That's the farthest thing from my intentions. And I hope it's obvious that I don't believe in any such curse. My only point is that the Church has not explicitly rejected the doctrine. Maybe it should. (I think Mauss has opined as much.) But if the reading you outlined above is the most direct path to the conclusion that the curse of Cain doctrine is in error, then I think you've established my point.

[paulpatter]

Some members steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the Church has made errors in the past and will very likely make them in the future. They apparently believe that an organization administered by fallible men--inspired though they may be--is incapable of error. Some such individuals are wont to post indefensible positions on this very board.

All of us, including those who are in pivotal leadership positions in the Church, are vulnerable to error. That fact is an indispensable part of our eternal progression. We progress not only as we live more Christ-like lives, but also as we learn and grow from the mistakes we make.

I think it was a U.S. Army general who said (paraphrasing): "Show me a man who never makes a mistake, and I'll show you someone who isn't doing anything."

[Lamanite]

You're one of my favorites here, Sione. I'm sorry if I come across as flippant on this subject. That's the farthest thing from my intentions. And I hope it's obvious that I don't believe in any such curse. My only point is that the Church has not explicitly rejected the doctrine. Maybe it should. (I think Mauss has opined as much.) But if the reading you outlined above is the most direct path to the conclusion that the curse of Cain doctrine is in error, then I think you've established my point.

The quickest way to determine that the practice wasn't a doctrine is the stupidity of the practice.

And to Glen: Yes, I'm saying that God sometimes stays his hand to the end that we might be able to better feel our way through life.

Big UP!

Lamanite

P.S. Sorry for the heavy handed "flippant" remark. I'm a "lame" sometimes.

[wenglund]

For me personally, I think I've found reconciliation, and this reconciliation is based wholly on spiritual manifestations....Lamanite

Excellent! You have found the key to the gospel, which is about looking to God rather than ourselves for answers and direction.

It is also, as you may well understand, about looking at all that is right with the gospel, rather than embrassing the presumed void and straining at the gnats of what may yet supposedly be wrong or unresolved in the gospel.

If people are still troubled by the wonderful blessing that was extended over 30 years ago, then for their own good they need to look inward for unresolved issues concerning themselves and the distorted and self-limiting way in which they may be looking at things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Obiwan]

Some members steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the Church has made errors in the past and will very likely make them in the future. They apparently believe that an organization administered by fallible men--inspired though they may be--is incapable of error. Some such individuals are wont to post indefensible positions on this very board.

All of us, including those who are in pivotal leadership positions in the Church, are vulnerable to error. That fact is an indispensable part of our eternal progression. We progress not only as we live more Christ-like lives, but also as we learn and grow from the mistakes we make.

I think it was a U.S. Army general who said (paraphrasing): "Show me a man who never makes a mistake, and I'll show you someone who isn't doing anything."

You need to learn the difference between the "humans" sometimes making error and "The Church" making error.

We fully recognize some LDS and some LDS leaders made mistakes, but "The Church" did not. Thus, there is NO REASON for "The Church" to apologize. The Church is separate from those mistakes and false assumptions, whatever actually was false, which is something we don't necessarily in total know. Most we know yes, but not all, such as the curse of Ham.

In simplistic terms, the Church cannot apologize on something it didn't do, and can't apologize for something it doesn't know.

There has been no revelation stating "what assumptions" were actually false. You all forget how the Church actually operates. It doesn't say anything unless God reveals it. God never say fit in his revelation to say "what" was actually true and false, which gives indication that the Ban WAS FROM HIM. In fact, I know it was due to evidence, and to say it wasn't would in fact make the Church just another man-made religion, and I won't go there unless it is actually true, and it's not. God had his reasons, and I can see some of those reasons, so, it's all good to me.

[Lamanite]

Excellent! You have found the key to the gospel, which is about looking to God rather than ourselves for answers and direction.

It is also, as you may well understand, about looking at all that is right with the gospel, rather than embrassing the presumed void and straining at the gnats of what may yet supposedly be wrong or unresolved in the gospel.

If people are still troubled by the wonderful blessing that was extended over 30 years ago, then for their own good they need to look inward for unresolved issues concerning themselves and the distorted and self-limiting way in which they may be looking at things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

These spiritual manifestations made reconciliation possible. They did not however, give me the "why" to many of my questions. So I superimpose my own judgments onto the past. These judgments are definitely influenced by my strengths, weaknesses, and life experiences.

I don't really have another methodology.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[alter idem]

BCC has an article on Armand Mauss's reflections on Official Declaration 2 and the end of the Priesthood Ban. In it, he mentions what he sees as 3 "unresolved issues" that remain even after the revelation on the priesthood:

Three unresolved issues--I believe he is correct.

Can anyone challenge what he has said? So far, I only see his detractors attacking him, accusing him of bias without offering evidence and of course, using their favorite line of attack--suggesting he's on the road to apostasy.

I believe Mauss is correct that the church uses the "we don't know why there was a ban" explanation and has not chosen to plainly deny or reject the many excuses which were used in times past. One reason for this is probably to protect those members of the church whose faith would be shaken if they were forced to face truth-- that church leaders are not infallible.

[paulpatter]

You need to learn the difference between the "humans" sometimes making error and "The Church" making error.

We fully recognize some LDS and some LDS leaders made mistakes, but "The Church" did not.

How does the Church function if not through the instrumentality of human beings? And the unpleasant truth is that human beings make mistakes (lots of 'em). You seem to be suggesting that the Church is self-animated.

: Thus, there is NO REASON for "The Church" to apologize.

I haven't said anything about the need for the Church to apologize.

: The Church is separate from those mistakes and false assumptions, whatever actually was false, which is something we don't necessarily in total know. Most we know yes, but not all, such as the curse of Ham.

The Church functions under the direction/leadership/administration/management of human beings, some of whom are very close to the spirit and some of whom are not. I encourage you to disabuse yourself of the notion that the Church acts independently of mortal beings. The Church came into being because of one individual in particular, acting under the influence of the Lord.

: In simplistic terms, the Church cannot apologize on something it didn't do, and can't apologize for something it doesn't know.

Human beings are entirely capable of apologizing, as did Bruce R. McConkie, in effect, when he retracted what he said about the priesthood ban following President Kimball's revelation.

[Have to stop here, but I'll address your last point later today.]

[alter idem]

Gordon B. Hinckley,

[BCSpace]

That doesn't answer the CFR. There's no rejection of the "curse of Cain" doctrine, just a broad injunction against racial slurs.

That is correct and I'll be willing to bet that there will never be a rejection of it. The prior latter-day priesthood ban is still a doctrine:

Abraham 1:24

[paulpatter]

. . . .You all forget how the Church actually operates. It doesn't say anything unless God reveals it.

The Church can't say anything in and of itself. President Kimball proactively sought the Lord's will re. the priesthood ban. He spent long, difficult hours in the temple. The issue was on his mind to such an extent that his health was in jeopardy. That Prophet, a mortal man, exercising extraordinary faith and pleading with the Lord, brought an end to the ban with the Lord's full concurrence. He (President Kimball) was the means by which the Lord's will was made known. "The Church"--an organizational entity--could not/did not lift the ban.

[wenglund]

These spiritual manifestations made reconciliation possible. They did not however, give me the "why" to many of my questions....Lamanite

That is the beauty of the way the gospel is set up. You really don't need answers to that specific "why" questions since that is between God and his chosen leaders at the time. It is sufficient for them to know "why" and sufficient for us to trust in God and our leaders.

I will explore this principle in more depth in a thread that I am in the process drafting. It will be titled: "Great Relief for the 'Ark-Steadiers': Lifting the Unnecessary Burden From Your Shoulders". (Not that I necessarily consider you an 'ark-steadier")

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

That is the beauty of the way the gospel is set up. You really don't need answers to that specific "why" questions since that is between God and his chosen leaders at the time. It is sufficient for them to know "why" and sufficient for us to trust in God and our leaders.

I will explore this principle in more depth in a thread that I am in the process drafting. It will be titled: "Great Relief for the 'Ark-Steadiers': Lifting the Unnecessary Burden From Your Shoulders". (Not that I necessarily consider you an 'ark-steadier")

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am an ark-steadier inasmuch as I seek to steady my own ark. But I hope my own ark is more of a personal lifeboat attached to the cruise liner of The Church.

I explain things from a personal perspective and sometimes people have similar perspectives. Sometimes no.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

I explain things from a personal perspective and sometimes people have similar perspectives. Sometimes no.

What was the personal perspective of Abraham on his mission with his son? If no explanation is forthcoming towards your personal perspective, would you then reject the action itself as being false or in doubt, even when compelled by a commandment to do something?

[Obiwan]

How does the Church function if not through the instrumentality of human beings? And the unpleasant truth is that human beings make mistakes (lots of 'em). You seem to be suggesting that the Church is self-animated.

It's not about being "self animated", it's about the Church having processes and proceedures, and it being lead by GOD, not man that makes the difference. "The Church" is separate from every "human" nuance. It has proceedures etc. in determining what is "doctrine" and policy, and what is actual revelation from God.

You not understanding how God's Church works in contrast to a man-made religion is not our issue.

I haven't said anything about the need for the Church to apologize.

But Mauss did, as well as most anti-mormons, hence what this thread is about and thus the subjects I'm addressing in my comments.

The Church functions under the direction/leadership/administration/management of human beings, some of whom are very close to the spirit and some of whom are not. I encourage you to disabuse yourself of the notion that the Church acts independently of mortal beings. The Church came into being because of one individual in particular, acting under the influence of the Lord.

And I would encorage yourself to disabuse yourself from false doctrine. Because what you just stated is contray to LDS Theology.

Anti-mormons might want to make everything some mortal in the Church says and does, as being "The Church", but The Church does not opporate that way. So sorry, your "opinion" is not how the Church does things. The Church and the "Gospel" is separate from the mortals therein.

Further, the "operative phrase", is under the influence of the Lord. And the Church itself has checks and balances in place to help prevent "opinions" of men as being representative of the Church, when they are not. Case in point is McConkies 1st Edition Mormon Doctrine. There were a couple of "big" mistakes in it, and the Bretheren called him on it, and he corrected them in the next edition. Of course, the book was still his, and not the Church, but, obvious things especially by a top leader, such as another case of Orson Pratt with his The Seer, required some direct correction.

Human beings are entirely capable of apologizing, as did Bruce R. McConkie, in effect, when he retracted what he said about the priesthood ban following President Kimball's revelation.

And the human beings involved "did" appologize, etc. But again, such has NOTHING to do with "The Church". "The Church" did not create nor promulgate every person opinion in relation to the ban. The Church also did not promote nor teach said opinions. The only one that came close to official saction is the banning of the Priesthood from the scriptures as to Ham and said Lineage. Now, wether the application or not was right, we don't know. And until God say's otherwise, the Church simply has nothing to say on the matter, yea or nay, other than what it already has said, which is "we don't know". That is the "official" standing of the Church.

[Obiwan]

The Church can't say anything in and of itself.

Yes it does, it does it all the time. Of course I'm well aware that it's done "threw" men, but it is done by Revelation, to all the Leadership, the Presidency, the 12 Apostles, etc. ALL must agree, for GOD is then speaking, and then "The Church" speaks!!!

The Church is not ran by person opinion, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, it is lead by GOD Himself, through Christ Himself. And there are processes and proceedures which determines "what" is actually "The Church" and God's Word, and what is simply mans. You not understanding this is not our problem.

President Kimball proactively sought the Lord's will re. the priesthood ban. He spent long, difficult hours in the temple. The issue was on his mind to such an extent that his health was in jeopardy. That Prophet, a mortal man, exercising extraordinary faith and pleading with the Lord, brought an end to the ban with the Lord's full concurrence. He (President Kimball) was the means by which the Lord's will was made known. "The Church"--an organizational entity--could not/did not lift the ban.

True about what you said about President Kimball, but FALSE as to your conclusions and assumptions from it. Many LDS leaders sought the Lords Will on this issue, but when the time was right, THAT is when the Lord spoke. The "man" did not cause that to occur, God did. To prove my point, WHY do you think "the man" worked so hard??? First there were changes in the world and the Church, and second, he worked so hard BECAUSE he was being LED BY GOD!!! That is not "the man" as you falsely claim, that is GOD leading and inspiring the man, preparing him to receive HIS WORD.

God uses MAN to send His Word, but man must be "prepared" to receive it when God is ready to give it. It doesn't work the other way around as you claim. When God is ready, man must also be. And the True Servants of God, receive it when it should be received, whereas man-made religions simply do things when they "feel" like it according to the wisdom of man, not God Himself.

Let me give you just one example of my point.... What "work" did Joseph do to begin seeing Visions, to have Angels come to him, etc. etc.??? God had a "work" for Joseph to do, but Joseph had to go along with the plane and do his part. But Joseph "himself" certainly didn't cause most things to occur. Yet, you want us to believe that is what happened with the Priesthood ban, that it was Kimball who "caused" the revelation to be recieved, rather than the other way around, as is the ACTUAL process in God's True Church.

You need to correct yourself.... You have several false assumptions and views on this issue.

[paulpatter]

It's not about being "self animated", it's about the Church having processes and proceedures, and it being lead by GOD, not man that makes the difference.

You overstate your case. Some of those "processes and procedures" failed, which makes it difficult to believe they were "engineered" by God. Anyone remember the "Prospective Elder" program? How about the Lamanite Placement program? And then there was the Church Basketball program. These programs, and others like them, were well-intentioned, but I doubt they were inspired by God.

: "The Church" is separate from every "human" nuance. It has proceedures etc. in determining what is "doctrine" and policy, and what is actual revelation from God.

If that's true, how do you explain (to cite just one example) the illegal, rash destruction of the Expositor printing press--an act that led directly to Carthage and the murders of Joseph and Hyrum?

: You not understanding how God's Church works in contrast to a man-made religion is not our issue.

I agree that the Church is led by God; otherwise, I wouldn't be a faithful, life-long member (you have me "pegged" as an "anti"), Our "issue" is that you think every decision is inspired and our leaders our infallible. Our leaders must undergo the same learning processes here in mortality as everyone else.

: But Mauss did, as well as most anti-mormons, hence what this thread is about and thus the subjects I'm addressing in my comments.

I understand, but Mauss is worth listening to, whether you agree with him or not. I'm reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's statement, "I am the student of every man."

: And I would encorage yourself to disabuse yourself from false doctrine. Because what you just stated is contray to LDS Theology.

Would you like to elaborate? References?

: Anti-mormons might want to make everything some mortal in the Church says and does, as being "The Church", but The Church does not opporate that way. So sorry, your "opinion" is not how the Church does things. The Church and the "Gospel" is separate from the mortals therein.

Forget the "anti" label if you're directing it at me.

The Church does not exist in a vacuum. It is led and administered by fallible human beings, divine influence notwithstanding. Consequently, there have been and will continue to be some stumbles. The Catholics teach "papal infallibility"; we do not teach anything comparable to that.

: Further, the "operative phrase", is under the influence of the Lord. And the Church itself has checks and balances in place to help prevent "opinions" of men as being representative of the Church, when they are not. Case in point is McConkies 1st Edition Mormon Doctrine. There were a couple of "big" mistakes in it, and the Bretheren called him on it, and he corrected them in the next edition. Of course, the book was still his, and not the Church, but, obvious things especially by a top leader, such as another case of Orson Pratt with his The Seer, required some direct correction.

So. . . . ."human nuances" were very much involved, weren't they?

: And the human beings involved "did" appologize, etc. But again, such has NOTHING to do with "The Church". "The Church" did not create nor promulgate every person opinion in relation to the ban. The Church also did not promote nor teach said opinions.

You are aware of statements by Brigham Young and other early Church leaders--right?

: The only one that came close to official saction is the banning of the Priesthood from the scriptures as to Ham and said Lineage.

And that was the principal rationale cited by Brigham Young--president of "The Church."

[paulpatter]

. . . .

God uses MAN to send His Word, but man must be "prepared" to receive it when God is ready to give it. It doesn't work the other way around as you claim. When God is ready, man must also be.

For authentic insight into how lifting the priesthood ban became a reality, I encourage you to read Edward Kimball's first-rate article entitled "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," BYU Studies, 47:2. The article supports some of what you say. I think you'll find it exceptionally revealing, if not surprising.

. . .

: You need to correct yourself.... You have several false assumptions and views on this issue.

"Several" and not "innumerable"? Thank you.

[daz2]

I have heard it said that the prophet cannot make a material mistake in leading the Church--sort of a Mormon infallibility doctrine--i.e., that when the prophet leads, he is perfect. True, prophets are not perfect men, but their imperfections are in immaterial matters--choice of tie color, for example.

On this thread, I read people arguing something slightly different. For example, that prophetic teachings can be wrong--such as Brigham Young's and John Taylor's about black Africans--but that the "Church's" teachings can never be wrong. Of course, I am not sure what would have qualified as the "Church's" officials teachings at that time, other than the teachings of its leaders.

The inference I make from these claims is that the "Church", and its teachings, must be as without flaw as God Himself, else the Church is not true. Or alternatively, that a prophet must be as perfect, without material flaw in behavior or teachings, or he is a false prophet.

Thus, it is essential to read all Church history in a manner either than mistakes of prophets were immaterial or they were not officially "Church" teachings.

With this world view, anyone who asserts or believes, inside or outside of the Church, that a prophet or an official Church teaching was not, throughout time, at a pinnacle of perfection becomes an anti-Mormon.

Many of us, including me, do not accept such a pristine view of the history of the Church, its members and its leaders. Many of us believe that God, as He did in the Old Testament, can call very fallible men as His servants. And we can believe that such men can make serious mistakes, even in patriarchal or ecclesiastical leadership positions--and yet the institution can still be God's divine Church, with His blessing and endorsement.