How Critical Information Affects Members Of The Church

[DBMormon]

In exploring faith crisis, it seems worth a discussion on how members come to incorrect conclusions due to how information is presented.

Before the discussion starts some examples need to be given.

Many members of the church seem to comment at times that they are frustrated that we believe X,Y, or Z when it simply isn't the case

one quote recently was from another thread

From what I read in Doctrines of Salvation, this lady has lost her blessing of exaltation if she is not able to regain

her current husband. But she can swap with a new husband when the former causes a sealing to break (volume 2,

page 65).

"No one can be deprived of exaltation who remains faithful. In other words, an undeserving husband cannot prevent

a faithful wife from an exaltation and vice versa. In this case the faithful servant would be given to someone who is

faithful"

The critic takes any sentence from a previous or current leader and tells the Mormon, "this is what you believe" and that is wrong.

This happens a lot and seems insincere. Why is the church bound to every word spoken and written by Elder Bruce R McConkie or President Joseph Fielding Smith? Why must these men according to critics not be allowed to ever make a mistake?

Whether it is Brigham Young and Adam-God, racist remarks by Mark Peterson, President Packer and his requote of "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done" and others.

Many of these are taken out of context and are used inappropriately. Even when used in context many of them represent the opinion of one or a few leaders but is passed of as being the view of the church.

another example : the un-experienced member seems to gather that evolution is bad and is given quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith and others to prove his point. What seems to go un-noticed is the fact that the First Presidency and 12 apostles were not in unity when a member or a few members decided to share their opinion from the stand.

for instance when one reads Mike Ash's paper http://www.mormonfor...m/evolution.pdf "the mormon myth of evolution" one can easily understand that it is not a matter of the church declaring Evolution false but rather a strong personality of one seeing cause to share their opinion from the stand.

Much of what is written negatively about the church seems to fall into this method of criticism and could be easily defended once we help members accept the messiness of a church when it involves humans even if that church is led by God.

Critics on the internet also place the negative or perceived negative comment of a leader o church matrial over and over again. For example we may hear over and over how Pres. Packer hates homosexuals and use his original quote from the Oct 2010 GC. Yet if we look at elder Packer's history of comments and talks about same sex attraction it gives a different presentation of his thoughts and feelings on the matter. you can for yourself here. http://maxwellinstit...23&num=1&id=820

Deceiving criticism about the book Elder Holland used for "safety for the Soul" - h t t p://www.flickr.com/photos/nickleus/sets/72157623567278714/comments (put the http back together before cutting and pasting) and this one

http://www.salamande...effreyrholland/

which just isn't true as you can see from the following site = http://contentdm.lib...n/RelEd/id/6463 There are at least two books beleiived to be that very copy Elder Holland referred to. One which came from Bethsheba Smith, Hyrum's wife, and another through Joseph f Smith... his son. He wasn't lying. He simple used the copy he thought was the one. He may or may not have been right.

Is it intentional or due to ignorance?

How do we confront this and begin to rid ourselves of it

How do we better help members understand this false approach?

What other examples do you see of critics and critical members attributing misconceptions and opinions to the doctrine of the church?

Edited June 24, 2012 by DBMormon

[Calm]

how members come to incorrect conclusions due to how information is presented.

I think it needs to be noted up front that it is very easy to misunderstand others if all you have is a limited written text. Not only is the author not there to clarify any answers, but one brings one's own assumptions and context to the reading. This is multiplied when the text has gone through the interpretations of multiple people.

So it is good, imo, to give people the benefit of the doubt to begin with......

OTOH, if after being corrected they continue to misrepresent, then slam them for all they are worth.

Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

I agree that we should give them the benefit but I am more concerned about how these critic cause some of us as members to form false standards for what the church teaches and their proceeding faith crisis.

Another example is sharing over and over the one recounting of a bishop who suggested that a believeing spouse divorce a non-believing spouse (100's of other situations like this one) while ignoring many examples that the bishop gave different advice. We place the few limited examples on a soapbox and fail to place the other outcomes into our data. This also happens a lot

Edited June 24, 2012 by DBMormon

[Calm]

I just thought I would get it out of the way so you could proceed with the meat.

[GreyHat]

The critic takes any sentence from a previous or current leader and tells the Mormon, "this is what you believe" and that is wrong.

This happens a lot and seems insincere. Why is the church bound to every word spoken and written by Elder Bruce R McConkie or President Joseph Fielding Smith? Why must these men according to critics not be allowed to ever make a mistake?

Just today In sacrament somebody utilized the quote from Brigham Young.

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

This is the attitude that some members have when it comes to the prophets. So when they see quotations from previous leaders of the church that are now considered to be incorrect it becomes troubling for them.

[Calm]

It is unfortunate the whole quote was not given as that places it in correct context.

[Hayds]

The critics aren't the only people who fall victim to this. This problem also exists among faithful LDS people. I can name numerous individuals in my ward, circle of friends, and family members who still believe outdated or non canonized doctrine. I know people who believe in Adam-God, Cain is Bigfoot, Blacks are fence sitters in the pre mortal existence, Jesus was a polygamist, City of Enoch is under the polar ice caps, and etc. These faithful members will tell you these things with a straight face. They will say the church had to dial it back because the faithful couldn't handle the truth or weren't spiritually attuned to receive the "deep doctrine".

Didn't a recent popular BYU professor just get reprimanded for wrongly spouting false doctrine about the African race?

To me it's obvious that some critics and faithful LDS still to cling outdated quotes and LDS folklore.

IMHO opinion the church needs to do a better job of disavowing specific quotes and communicating what is real and what isn't. They think they are cleaning it up by leaving stuff out of lesson manuals and current books which is great, but as long as some of these concepts are not clearly identified and addressed head on, there will always be critics who point to past quotes and say "You believe this..." and there will always be faithful members who will cling to past quotes and say "This is true and is the deep doctrine of the church for those who have truly gained a testimony..."

Edited June 24, 2012 by Hayds

[Hayds]

To follow up on my last post. I would love to see an official proclamation signed by the Qo12 and 1st Pres. similar to the Proclamation to the Family. It could be a list similar to the Articles of Faith but it could start out with "We don't believe... despite what some of our past leaders and prophets have been quoted on record to say." They could then list some of these fallacies and quotes head on that cause confusion.

[DBMormon]

Quote

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

This is the attitude that some members have when it comes to the prophets. So when they see quotations from previous leaders of the church that are now considered to be incorrect it becomes troubling for them.

I have always thought many of our members are too limited in our view of the gospel aka: black and white and too expansive in what we include in it. Many members could use a course on "What the mormon next to you believes and why" seeing how other mormons see the gospel might be an interesting discussion and open some eyes to the pure doctrine of christ and the opinions on the appendages of it.... gospel hobbies.

Edited June 25, 2012 by DBMormon

[Calm]

To follow up on my last post. I would love to see an official proclamation signed by the Qo12 and 1st Pres. similar to the Proclamation to the Family. It could be a list similar to the Articles of Faith but it could start out with "We don't believe... despite what some of our past leaders and prophets have been quoted on record to say." They could then list some of these fallacies and quotes head on that cause confusion.

It is a very appealing thought.

[BCSpace]

This happens a lot and seems insincere. Why is the church bound to every word spoken and written by Elder Bruce R McConkie or President Joseph Fielding Smith? Why must these men according to critics not be allowed to ever make a mistake?

Well, in the example you give, Doctrines of Salvation is not a doctrinal work because it's not published by the Church. But I do hear all kinds of excuses saying "I was taught this and that" and since I don't believe it, the Church isn't true. "This and that" often being something not published by the Church and therefore not doctrine. So it is critical to cite only published works of the Church when asserting doctrine. Otherwise, such assertions may or may not be doctrine.

[cwald]

Perhaps it would be helpful if the church acknowledged "the church" has made mistakes in the past, and not get so defensive and start throwing out the "apostate" and "wolf" accusations when people express concern about current policies and practices....

I think this us why both faithful and unorthodox members quote and misuse "one liners"....its a defense mechanism.

Edited June 25, 2012 by cwald

[DBMormon]

Perhaps it would be helpful if the church acknowledged "the church" has made mistakes in the past, and not get so defensive and start throwing out the "apostate" and "wolf" accusations when people express concern about current policies and practices....

Mistakes are a given CWALD.... Paul corrected Peter, Peter corrected Paul. Gospel not given to the gentiles until Peter is given a revelation that he is mistaken and needs to do so. I think the issue is what caused members like you and me to not have flexibility and to put more emphasis on cerrtain issues that when understood correctly are not issues at all.

For me having seen critics comments on certain things over and over my brain begin to put more weight on them even though it may have been one sentence spoken at one time and the person who spoke it may have left that view and changed themselves... and yet here am I holding the 2012 church and the 1985 Bruce R McConkie against the 1970 Bruce R McConkie definiton in "MORMON DOCTRINE" Is that fair??? do you want to be held to something you thought incorrectly 10 years ago???? no. The church doesn't teach it, they have essentially not espoused the teaching, they simply left it outside of accepted Doctrine. And yet members like you and me read material that is not doctrine written by a leader and we assimilated the non-Doctrinal opinion into our personal Doctrine box. It seemed to us to be so, it made sense at the time... and now we know better, but rather then see we incorrectly adopted it, we blame the church for not telling us sooner.

Other members did the same, even bishops and Stake Presidents. So you heard the non-Doctrinal opinion from your Sunday School Teachers, Bishops, Parents, ect... and we assumed it was a teaching of the church. In most cases It wasn't. But we din't get that. We read their book, listened to their BYU devotional talk and we assumed that was the gospel.... it wasn't it was the non-Doctrinal opinion of one person or a few people that then became widely accepted by members but not by the church... But it wasn't. It wasn't in the manual they were teaching from. It wasn't in the scriptures, It wasn't a belief help by the church.. It was an individual interject a false opinion they read the week before and inccorectly felt a need to make it the gospel and share it with you

It is the reason for the epistles in the NEW TESTAMENT... constantly correcting false beliefs in the church.... now today we have the internet, ebay(cheap old books), craigslist (cheap old books), Sunstone, dialogue, mormon stories, stayLDS, exmormon.org, blogs, podcasts, we get so many different views and so many different theories.... and yet if we rid ourselves of the all the noise and simply look at what the actual church has taught us in conference, manuals, the scriptures, aka: the church and the pure doctrine of Christ.... we can grasp exactly what the church teaches and accepts as it's doctrine.

While members have a wide range of gospel hobbies and incorrect opinions and beliefs... The church has been relatively consistent in teaching the doctrine or gospel in plainness.

it sucks.... the confusion, the pain, the hurt of trying to figure your way through it... but it is what it is and naturally occurs in every facet of life.. it is due to ignorance, biases, over zealousness, intellectual pride, ect... but in the end it happens..... and it happens in every faith, eployment, science, ect... The church is also a work in progress... there are still many great things yet to be revealed. CWALD - I recommend you go back to the basics in that you put all this stuff away for one week, read the Book of Mormon, humbly, seeking truth, but blocking out your biases and personal criticisms and then read the whole book and then ask him... Once an answer to that comes you can then try to put all of this in it's place... it's rightful place

Edited June 25, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Perhaps it would be helpful if the church acknowledged "the church" has made mistakes in the past, and not get so defensive and start throwing out the "apostate" and "wolf" accusations when people express concern about current policies and practices....

The church never called you a wolf.... biased, ignorance, pride, overzealouness and a host of other possibilities of why a member here or a member there acts out innapropriately (sometimes even a leader) but not the church

[selek1]

Many members could use a course on "What the mormon next to you believes and why" seeing how other mormons see the gospel

This sounds like a good idea in isolation, but when you look at it in the larger context of the Church and Church culture, it loses much of its lustre.

How often have the Brethren reminded us to read our Scriptures daily? How many of us actually do?

The only way to teach this subject comprehensively and objectively would be to have the Church teach it- in time taken out of our already limited allotment. The only way to teach the folklore ("what the Mormon next to you believes and why") is to take away from teaching the plain and precious things of the Gospel.

I doubt the trade-off is worth it.

I also think the personal, one-on-one approach is more effective (if only judging by the rolling of eyes, shrill screams, and stampeding desperation to get out of my way when they see me coming).

In my opinion, it would be better for each member to know the truth, have the resources and teachings to back them up, and confront the error and disinformation head on.

With our brethren and sisters, this should be done in a spirit of patience, long-suffering, and love unfeigned. It should also be a matter of planting seeds and gentle suggestiion rather than of J'accuse!

(With critics and wolves, I believe a #4 ballpeen hammer is the preferred tool for the job.)

It might be an interesting discussion and open some eyes to the pure doctrine of christ and the opinions on the appendages of it.... gospel hobbies.

If handled correctly and according to the promptings of the Spirit- it might.

Handled badly, it could become yet another source of Church dissension.

[selek1]

Perhaps it would be helpful if the church acknowledged "the church" has made mistakes in the past,

I know, I know- I shouldn't but I gotta nonetheless.

Call For References, cwald.

Name three- with factual evidence that these were, in fact, mistakes (rather than an honest difference of opinion with our critics).

I think this us why both faithful and unorthodox members quote and misuse "one liners"....its a defense mechanism.

In some cases, it is. In others, it is deep-seated amusement at the certitufe with which people repeat things they've heard about the Church- but don't know anything about themselves.

[CV75]

Is it intentional or due to ignorance?

How do we confront this and begin to rid ourselves of it

How do we better help members understand this false approach?

What other examples do you see of critics and critical members attributing misconceptions and opinions to the doctrine of the church?

I think knowning the answers to these questions (and then knowing what to do about and with the answers) depends on our individual ability to foster and maintain relationships in a Christlike manner with as many people as possible.

[cwald]

I know, I know- I shouldn't but I gotta nonetheless.

Call For References, cwald.

Name three- with factual evidence that these were, in fact, mistakes (rather than an honest difference of opinion with our critics...

1. Blood atonement in the temple.

2. Adam/God taught in the temple.

3. 18 month missions in the 80s

4. Policy of denying black's the priesthood and inclusion in the temple rites.

5. Church position in opposition to the civil rights movement.

6. The church position in the 70s and 80s that birth control was evil.

7. Early church teachings about evolution.

8. Polyandry.

9. Church early position that homosexuality is a choice, and has nothing to do with biology.

10. The 14 F's of the Prophet.

I'm assuming I don't need references for these as they are all well documented. Now, the question is, were they mistakes. I think so. I'm sure most here will disagree and want to debate it and start throwing out quotes...which just proves my point.

The church will not admit it was wrong. Ever. Sorry DB, but it is not a given.

[cwald]

And I call for a CFR myself....show me some factual evidence that I am wrong....

Give me three examples of where the church admitted it made a mistake and was wrong.

And the whole "we have more revelation now" is not admitting they were wrong and made a mistake....it is an excuse.

No DB, it certainly is not a given.

[wenglund]

The problem, as I see it, is individuals placing way too much importance on what is or isn't church teaching or doctrine, and not enough importance on the end to which those teachings and doctrines are intended. The means is errantly given priority over the end.

One of the reason this is problematic, aside from what I just explained, is that church teachings and doctrines may rightly evolve as the Church as a whole progresses, and various teachings and doctrines may take on wonderfully new and enriched meanings as individual members progress. Cherry-picking statements from Church leader, pitting them against each other, and/or dogmatically putting one's spin on them, not only ignores the individual and collective progress, but it errantly confines the Church to an overly narrow conceptual box and freezes the Church at various points in time. This is contra-progressional and unfair to a living and growing faith.

Besides, often those who presume to tell us what we teach and believe tend to be those in the least position to do so--either because they have never belonged to the faith (and thus cant authoritatively say), or they have lost faith and may not have correctly understood our faith--that, or it makes little sense for those who have flunked the test of faith to lecture about faith to those who continue successfully in faith).

[edit: For a good example of what I am talking about, see cwalds post above with the list of so-called mistakes.]

I know I have said this before in so may ways. However, I believe it bears repeating.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 25, 2012 by wenglund

[selek1]

Now, the question is, were they mistakes. I think so. I'm sure most here will disagree and want to debate it and start throwing out quotes...which just proves my point.

It proves nothing of the sort.

You were asked to provide three mistakes committed by the Church: with proof that they were mistakes.

By admitting that this list is simply your opinion, you punted on your own third yard line.

You didn't even try to answer the CFR- you just threw out your list of top gripes.

Under those circumstances, I suppose declaring "victory" and retreating headlong from the field was the only real option you had.

As to the tired old canard, "The church will not admit it was wrong. Ever.", this is attempting to prove a negative.

Prove the Church wrong (just once- I double dare you) , and we'll see how they handle it.

Edited June 25, 2012 by selek1

[rpn]

3. 18 month missions in the 80s Why would it be a mistake to try something different to see how it worked?

4. Policy of denying black's the priesthood and inclusion in the temple rites. Practically no one today has anything good to say about this, and perhaps rightly so. It sounds so wrong. My pure speculation is that BY felt it was God's will because the church could not survive fighting battles about interracial marriage as well as polygamy. And thereafter, it took several generations for mortal leadership to be willing to accept the change. Not sure how that makes it a mistake, unless you speculate that BY's belief on the point was not confirmed by the spirit. (and remember all of my speculation is jsut that)

5. Church position in opposition to the civil rights movement. The church was ahead of the civil rights movement: it excommunicated slave holder members whose slaves became pregnant (before the civil war). Utah never had laws that segregate, and has a positive history (well mostly) about how they dealt with indigenous americans who lived in Utah when they arrived in Utah. Further, doctrine recognizes all all children of God. Further I don't think the church expressed any position opposing the civil rights movement. What exactly are you talking about.

6. The church position in the 70s and 80s that birth control was evil. you really need to give doctrinal quotes because I think this was more the choice to use birth control violates covenants to replenish the earth.

7. Early church teachings about evolution. There still is no official church doctrine on evolution. So how can teachings be a mistake before there is any revealed understanding on the subject.

8. Polyandry. Since wilford woodruff's revenlation in the 1870's or so made it clear families were to be sealed withiin families, I think it is far to say that sealings to people outside of family WERE a misunderstanding of the law. I'm not sure that is the same thing as a mistake.

9. Church early position that homosexuality is a choice, and has nothing to do with biology. You've heard of the fact that we learn line upon line. The Church now says we don't know. I don't think increased understanding = past understanding is a mistake.

.

[cwald]

Selek, you are correct. I have no intention of trying to "prove" the church was wrong or made a mistake. I know when I am outgunned. And besides, that is not why I am here.

Selek, do you think "the church" has ever made a mistake? Yes or no.

If yes, did they admit they made a mistake? Yes or no.

And if yes on both, would you mind telling where I can find it.

This is not an attack or a debate...I just want to understand what the faithful truly believe.

Edited June 25, 2012 by cwald

[mentalgymnast]

Perhaps it would be helpful if the church acknowledged "the church" has made mistakes in the past...

Not something that I would expect to happen except through the process of natural evolution. IOW's, something is left aside/ignored and then it becomes more or less a non issue to the general membership within a generation or two. For the church to admit to one mistake or another sort of opens up a can of worms. Where is one going to draw the line? Was the United Order a mistake or an experiment...or was it done through revelation? Were the first missionaries sent out to the borderlands of the U.S. to preach to the Lamanites sent out by mistake or was it an experiment...or was it done through revelation? Multiple and varied examples could be given where it becomes a bit messy to try and sort out what was a mistake, what was an experiment, or was revelatory...or somewhere in between. I'm thinking of Brigham's teachings concerning Adam/god as being somewhere in between revelation and...something else.

And since we have the Lord saying in the D&C that his house is a house of order I think we tend to get a bit nervous and jumpy when things look to be out of sorts and somewhat disorderly and/or ambiguous.

I think it would be helpful if as a church culture we could gradually get to the point, and I see it happening a bit, where we recognize the the world (and the church/kingdom) has always been a messy place with pockets of people and/or places where things are less messy and a bit more productive, organized and prosperous. Organizations and groups tend to naturally be messy, to some degree, unless periodic course adjustments are made through meetings, goals, standards, retrenchments, etc. The church and its people are no different, including the humans that sit in the red chairs at conference.

If we can remember/embrace that "...God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty", we'd be in a better place and not have to fret so much.

This picture that the church tries to portray to the world through church PR and by other means that everything is, as Mary Poppins was wont to say, "practically perfect in every way", simply gets us/them into trouble at times. Then there's this pride thing. We need to let our guard down, be up front and honest, and let truth cut its own way...and trust that it will.

Regards,

MG

[selek1]

Selek, you are correct. I have no intention of trying to "prove" the church was wrong or made a mistake. I know when I am outgunned. And besides, that is not why I am here.

Then perhaps you should speak more circumspectly than you did post #12 (and elsewhere).

When you throw out generalized accusations like that, you can expect to be called on them.

Selek, do you think "the church" has ever made a mistake? Yes or no.

Ummm...why does it have to be a "yes" or a "no"? If you really want to know what I actually think, why would you insist on squeezing my answer into one narrow little box?

In answer to your question, the answer is, "No- I do not believe the Church as a whole has made a decision that was demonstrably wrong or incorrect."

Have they made decision or judgements with which I don't agree? Certainly.

Have they made decisions and judgements which I do not understand? Again- absolutely.

Were these demonstrably "mistakes"? Not even close.

The closest example to a genuine mistake on the part of the Church I can think of might be the excommunication of Helmuth Hübener (though most of the blame must be shouldered by Stake Branch President Arthur Zander).

If yes, did they admit they made a mistake? Yes or no.

The decision was reversed and all of Hübener blessings (and his good name) were restored in 1946.

Was this situation demonstrably a mistake? No. Though it might have been handled differently (and better), I'm not certain how.

Was it demonstrably wrong? That's less clear. It depends upon whether the decision was carried out because of prudence or zeal.

I think President Zander's decision was unjust and excessive- but I also don't know to what extent he was acting to protect the Saints from the Nazi regime (who were kinda big on that whole guilt-by-association thing).

Was Hübener "punished" because his Branch President was a true believer in the Nazi party? Or was President Zander acting to distance the Saints in his care from the repurcussions of actions guaranteed to raise the ire of a repressive and abusive police state?

I would like to think I'd have handled it far differently- but pray God I never have to find out.

Edited June 25, 2012 by selek1