Can The Lds Church Make Mistakes?

[John Ping Pong]

From my perspective, because the LDS Church is run by men, and men are by definition fallable, it is not only possible for the LDS Church to make mistakes, but unavoidable.

It has been my experience, however, that many LDS are constitutionally incapable of allowing for the possibility that Church leadership could ever make a mistake in a Church-related decision or, if they can countenance it in the abstract, will not write the error in the concrete.

I wanted to start this thread in order to explore this phenomenon and see how posters on this board feel about the premise.

[selek1]

From my perspective, because the LDS Church is run by men, and men are by definition fallable, it is not only possible for the LDS Church to make mistakes, but unavoidable.

I would agree with the first part of this statement, but not the second.

As stated, the Church is governed by men- logically, it is logically (and remotely) possible that these men might collectively make a mistake- but it is not in evidence.

Yes, it is theoretically possible- but highly improbable given the rendundant levels of administration and revelation within the Church organization, the principle of common consent within the Church, and the fact that the Church is not governed solely by men.

Probability assures us that- given a sufficiently long period of time- that any possibility (no matter how remote) will eventually come true (the old adage about monkeys, typewriters, and Shakespeare comes to mind).

Unfortunately, the timeframe for the Church is both finite (and historically speaking, comparatively short). We have not yet had time for the "laws of probability" to catch up with us.

In fact, despite the fact that you've raised this issue in at least three separate threads, you've yet to provide evidence of even a single instance where such a mistake was made.

The only concrete example you've offered- the eighteen-month mission policy- does not meet the burden of proof since it does not meet the definition of a "mistake".

There is, of course, a difference between acknowledging a theoretical possibility and making an accusation. The statement below (vis-a-vis "many LDS") is the latter, rather the former.

It has been my experience, however, that many LDS are constitutionally incapable of allowing for the possibility that Church leadership could ever make a mistake in a Church-related decision or, if they can countenance it in the abstract, will not write the error in the concrete.

First and foremost, this statement borders on ad hominem and prejudicial stereotypes. You offer no evidence of your allegation, nor of your qualifications to make such a generalization.

Who are you to determine what "many LDS" are "constitutionally capable" of?

Your statement, as written, does not address whether this alleged "inability" is a personal failing or inherent in LDS belief.

If you are alleging the Latter, you are engaging in malicious stereotyping (and ad hominem and well-poisoning) without evidence.

If the former, the allegation is irrelevant.

Edited June 30, 2012 by selek1

[Bikeemikey]

Hey Selek1,

What would constitute a mistake by the church, in your mind.

I am curious of your claim that we will not be able to find even one mistake.

I am an active member of the Church, etc etc. I think I have seen numerous mistakes over the history of the church.

We could start with spelling mistakes in publications & Scripture. Are these Church mistakes?

We could move on to Church leaders stating factually inaccurate things to the church, some of Joseph Smiths "quoting" of scripture in other languages that were not actually correct spring to mind.

There are numerous examples of this kind of thing. Mistakes at a very basic level by individuals, errors content generation etc.

I am assuming that you have seen many of these yourself.

Given that these don't rise to the level of "mistake" (at least that is my interpretation of your post), pray tell, what would you consider a mistake by the church (as you have stated, you may need to give us pretend examples as real ones may not exist).

Cheers.

[zerinus]

From my perspective, because the LDS Church is run by men, and men are by definition fallable, it is not only possible for the LDS Church to make mistakes, but unavoidable.

It has been my experience, however, that many LDS are constitutionally incapable of allowing for the possibility that Church leadership could ever make a mistake in a Church-related decision or, if they can countenance it in the abstract, will not write the error in the concrete.

I wanted to start this thread in order to explore this phenomenon and see how posters on this board feel about the premise.

The problem with that is that it is a theoretical and an abstract question. It is not an enlightening question. A more meaningful question would be, Can you identify a mistake have been made by the Church, and on what criteria do you base that judgement? Do you know of a mistake that has been made by the Church, and how do you know that it was a mistake? What if I disagreed with you that it was a mistake? How do we conclude that you are right and I am wrong? What would be the basis of that judgement?

[Freedom]

There are doctrinal mistakes and administrative mistakes. God leaves us to work out our own salvation, to experiment upon the word, and to learn from experience. I would say that the small temple experiment was a mistake. The brethren tried to make temples more accessible but the 10,000 sq ft template was too small. The concept was correct, I think that they just went a bit too small. I see these decisions that are later reversed or altered are learning from experience.

[selek1]

Hey Selek1,

What would constitute a mistake by the church, in your mind.

Asked and answered in the two other threads JPP has raised the issue.

I am curious of your claim that we will not be able to find even one mistake.

Thus far, no one has been able to provide any.

I am an active member of the Church, etc etc. I think I have seen numerous mistakes over the history of the church.

Then you should be able to provide the evidence.

We could start with spelling mistakes in publications & Scripture. Are these Church mistakes?

No- they are the mistakes of the authors, proofreaders, and publishers.

We could move on to Church leaders stating factually inaccurate things to the church, some of Joseph Smiths "quoting" of scripture in other languages that were not actually correct spring to mind.

Unless the Church has pronouncements them to be the position, belief, a/o doctrine of the Church, they are not the Church's mistakes.

There are numerous examples of this kind of thing. Mistakes at a very basic level by individuals, errors content generation etc.

By your own admission.

Given that these don't rise to the level of "mistake" (at least that is my interpretation of your post),

Kindly address the comments I have made- not those you wish I had made.

I said the eighteen month mission policy did not rise to the level of a mistake, since it has not proven to have been either an error or a fault.

The examples you give above are (by your own admission) errors by individuals, not the Church.

I already stated that a mistake by the Church is theoretically possible.

The continued badgering merely camouflages the point that neither you nor yuour fellow travellers have provided any evidence of demonstrable, institutional mistakes by the Church.

I would also second the critcisms made by both Zerinus (first time for everything) and Freedom (though I would like prefer more details about the "small temple experiment" and his assessment thereof)

Edited June 30, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

A poll might have been interesting.

1. Can it make mistakes: Yes

2. How do I feel about this: I don't care at all.

Edited June 30, 2012 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

Kindly address the comments I have made- not those you wish I had made.

I said the eighteen month mission policy did not rise to the level of a mistake, since it has not proven to have been either an error or a fault.

The examples you give above are (by your own admission) errors by individuals, not the Church.

I already stated that a mistake by the Church is theoretically possible.

The continued badgering merely camouflages the point that neither you nor yuour fellow travellers have provided any evidence of demonstrable, institutional mistakes by the Church.

I would also second the critcisms made by both Zerinus (first time for everything) and Freedom (though I would like prefer more details about the "small temple experiment" and his assessment thereof)

I don't have any criticism of the comments you have made. I was more interested in finding out what your definition of a mistake would be. I have not read the other threads on the subject you referred to but will now that I know about them.

Your point is well taken that a definitive example of error or fault needs to be demonstrated and that such an error or fault must originate from the central body of the church and be endorsed by the church officially before such an error or fault could be construed as "an error or mistake by the church". This is solid reasoning.

I personally think it is also logically impossible to to ever prove a "mistake" under such rigorous measures. The blame can always be pushed to an individual, even in the event the church does sanction something. We could push of implementation errors to the individual and not the institution. Likewise there is no real way to measure error or fault. Were the prophet to say he was inspired to send 100 missionaries on a different plane at the last minute due to life & safety concerns, then have the plane all of the missionaries were flying on explode and have everyone die, we could always say the prophet was concerned for the life of their souls and the safety of their exaltation, and as such the lord inspired him to send them on this plane to ensure their exaltation. When every the presence of extra-temporal values are imposed in the process of measuring error, mistake or fault we always have the best out possible. We may think it is a mistake from a temporal perspective, but to God it is not, we know this, therefore no mistakes - in fact, never any mistakes that can be proven as no man can know the mind of God.

I also agree with Zerinus and the necessity of rephrasing/redirecting the question. That post is important at framing the larger debate. Freedom also as an interesting point, is a policy shift/aesthetic change equal to an admission of error. I think based on Selek1's measure of mistake the church would have to come out at conference and say a mistake was made. Nothing else would pass the Selek1 test.

I think the church is capable of making mistakes. I also define a mistake differently to Selek1 and believe we have made mistakes. However, there is no point listing them as we would not agree on list. I am also not concerned, upset or worried that we are part of a Church that makes mistakes.

[John Ping Pong]

My count so far is that four believe the LDS Church can make mistakes and two (selek1 and zerinus) believe it cannot.

[selek1]

The blame can always be pushed to an individual, even in the event the church does sanction something. We could push of implementation errors to the individual and not the institution.

Thank you for the kind words.

I agree with nearly everything you posited, with the notable exception of the above.

If the Church officially endorses or sanctions the error, then the Church has made that error it's own.

I'm simply not aware that such has ever taken place.

Likewise there is no real way to measure error or fault.

I disagree. A statement or policy originating with the Church that is unquestionably and demonstrably harmful, destructive, or counter-factual can be defined as an error. At no point in this argument have I (or any of the faithful) suggested that the rules or reason or logic do not apply.

Were the prophet to say he was inspired to send 100 missionaries on a different plane at the last minute due to life & safety concerns, then have the plane all of the missionaries were flying on explode and have everyone die, we could always say the prophet was concerned for the life of their souls and the safety of their exaltation, and as such the lord inspired him to send them on this plane to ensure their exaltation.[/quote} I also object to the implicit rationalization and self-deception involved in this argument.

If the Prophet switches the flight at the last minute due to health/safety concerns, it is dishonest to come back after the fact and attempt to rationalize that "he was concerned about ensuring their exaltation." From the hypothetical offered, it was one or the other.

When every the presence of extra-temporal values are imposed in the process of measuring error, mistake or fault we always have the best out possible.

This presupposes a desire to rationalize or engage in self-deception. You assume that someone trying to understand a particular outcome in eternal or mortal terms necessarily needs an "out".

Like JPP's "constitutional inability" meme above, I don't believe you're qualified to make such an argument.

We may think it is a mistake from a temporal perspective, but to God it is not, we know this, therefore no mistakes - in fact, never any mistakes that can be proven as no man can know the mind of God.

Likewise, I reject this premise whole-heartedly (as will nearly every other Saint of my acquaintance).

For what else is revaltion, other than the means to know "the mind of God"?

I also agree with Zerinus and the necessity of rephrasing/redirecting the question. That post is important at framing the larger debate. Freedom also as an interesting point, is a policy shift/aesthetic change equal to an admission of error. I think based on Selek1's measure of mistake the church would have to come out at conference and say a mistake was made. Nothing else would pass the Selek1 test.

I disagree.

A demonstrable error is a demonstrable error- whether the Church admits one or not.

Thus far, neither you nor anyone else has offered one- though the jury is still out on the "small Temple" experiment.

[selek1]

My count so far is that four believe the LDS Church can make mistakes and two (selek1 and zerinus) believe it cannot.

Your count is in error.

Read what I posted.

(This does raise an interesting philosophical point, however. If the error is deliberate- and for polemical purposes- does it really count as a "mistake"?)

Edited June 30, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

My count so far is that four believe the LDS Church can make mistakes and two (selek1 and zerinus) believe it cannot.

You have counting problems.

[selek1]

You have counting problems.

You are in error.

He can count just fine.

His problems instead lies in either reading comprehension or ideological blindness.

Edited June 30, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

You are in error.

He can count just fine.

His problems instead lies in either reading comprehension or ideological blindness.

There is no evidence he can count just fine, but that is irrelevant. A counting problem does not necessarily mean an inability to count. And even you said his count was in error.

A counting problem can arise from:

• Not knowing how to count.
  
• Knowing how to count but miscounting.
  
• Counting set misidentification
  
• Missing Units of sets
  
• Exceedingly large or limitless sets
  

If you do not understand something you should wait a while and hold your peace or ask questions rather than jump to an instinctual knee jerk contradiction.

Edited June 30, 2012 by CASteinman

[Palerider]

From my perspective, because the LDS Church is run by men, and men are by definition fallable, it is not only possible for the LDS Church to make mistakes, but unavoidable.

It has been my experience, however, that many LDS are constitutionally incapable of allowing for the possibility that Church leadership could ever make a mistake in a Church-related decision or, if they can countenance it in the abstract, will not write the error in the concrete.

I wanted to start this thread in order to explore this phenomenon and see how posters on this board feel about the premise.

I'd say that restricting the priesthood from those of African descent is a pretty big error. The problem comes when rather than admit to the error some would prefer to rationalize the issue rather than face the cognitive dissonance that accompanies admission.

Everything I've read so far leaves the leadership saying in essence, "we don't know why we did it."

Which leaves the membership scrambling to find justification in the scriptures for such behavior.

[John Ping Pong]

Your count is in error.

Read what I posted.

(This does raise an interesting philosophical point, however. If the error is deliberate- and for polemical purposes- does it really count as a "mistake"?)

Leaving aside your rather flagrant ad hominem remark, I have counted you as one who does not believe the Church can make a mistake.

Was I wrong in this?

Do you, in fact, believe the Church can make a mistake?

(A simple yes or no would be helpful for those of us with counting impediments.)

[cwald]

Ping Pong...you are asking the wrong question.

I had several posters here admit that it "was a given" that the church makes mistakes. Yet, then other posters come piling on asking for evidence of such mistake.

The question that I seem to be struggling to find the question to...is will the church ever ADMIT to making a mistake?

Aside from the German SP excommunicating the jewish sympathizer...I have not heard any of the faithful board posters admit that the church has ever made a mistake.

[cwald]

(A simple yes or no would be helpful for those of us with counting impediments.)

Not going to happen.

[ERayR]

The problem I have is that those who are constantly trying to attribute errors to the church are simply substituting their own judgement for that of church leaders. It is also done without any attempt at finding out the mind and will of God nor is it in the scope of their priesthood calling.

[John Ping Pong]

The problem I have is that those who are constantly trying to attribute errors to the church are simply substituting their own judgement for that of church leaders. It is also done without any attempt at finding out the mind and will of God nor is it in the scope of their priesthood calling.

I am glad to see you here on this thread, ERayR.

Do you think it is possible for the LDS Church to make a mistake?

[ERayR]

I am glad to see you here on this thread, ERayR.

Do you think it is possible for the LDS Church to make a mistake?

Thanks. I don't know for how long, perhaps in and out.

There was a time in my checkered past when I had some similar thoughts about what I thought were errors in church leadership. As I have grown older and learned to listen to my own guidance from the Holy Ghost I have come to understand that while I had some great ideas I was not nearly as smart as I had first thought I was. In looking at results over years, instead of short-term, I have come to realize that, despite their shortcomings, those whose calling it is to lead the church have done it well or have eventually been removed. Do I think those who are leading the church are the only ones who can or could do it? No I think there are probably hundreds of thousands who could step into those positions and listen to the Holy Ghost and do a great job. However, I do believe that for whatever his reasons those now leading the church are the ones "God wants there or at least does not object to them and I think we only do damage to ourselves when we let our hubris think we could do a better job. Question if you will but pray about your questions then most important open up to answers from spiritual sources. Most important remember it is God's church, not yours.

Edited June 30, 2012 by ERayR

[altersteve]

Yes, Church leaders can (and have, and will) make mistakes. That's all I can say.

[DBMormon]

I think indidual leaders in the church can and have made mistakes. There is enough evidence to show that some memebrs of the 12 and First Presidency were for evolution and some of them were against it. Both sides spoke out at times in church meetings. Someone was right and someone was wrong.

A few of the twelve did not agree Elder Benson speaking about the John Birch society the way he did in church meetings. Some of them spoke out in conference and other meetings. Someone was right and someone was wrong. Age of the earth... both sides have had statements made... someone was right and someone was wrong.

We are so quick to say the leaders are not infalliable and yet we defend them on every jot and title. I think we have to find a way to acknowledge this infalliability in real terms but do so in a way that is not being critical of our leaders. I think we can do so just the way I did. Acknowledge that there are incongruities and simply don't fight for what side was right and let individuals make up thier own mind.

my two cents

[ERayR]

I think indidual leaders in the church can and have made mistakes. There is enough evidence to show that some memebrs of the 12 and First Presidency were for evolution and some of them were against it. Both sides spoke out at times in church meetings. Someone was right and someone was wrong.

A few of the twelve did not agree Elder Benson speaking about the John Birch society the way he did in church meetings. Some of them spoke out in conference and other meetings. Someone was right and someone was wrong. Age of the earth... both sides have had statements made... someone was right and someone was wrong.

We are so quick to say the leaders are not infalliable and yet we defend them on every jot and title. I think we have to find a way to acknowledge this infalliability in real terms but do so in a way that is not being critical of our leaders. I think we can do so just the way I did. Acknowledge that there are incongruities and simply don't fight for what side was right and let individuals make up thier own mind.

my two cents

Yet the Church has not come down on either side of these issues. Some leaders were wrong, some were right but the church has not taken a stand as an organization. The church has not been wrong.

[Bikeemikey]

Is it possible for the church to see a mistake as a mistake?

Is it possible for the bulk of membership to see a mistake when/if it were to occur?

can the church maintain the necessary mantle of divine authority and have mistakes occur?

At what point is a mistake of an individual (and all possible mistakes will come down to an individuals or group of individuals private decision making) become the responsibility of the church?

At what point do we need to stop citing celestial perspective or spiritual knowledge as reason to avoid calling what appears from a temporal perspective to be a mistake?

These are all questions that I think are interesting.

Selek1 has offered a comprehensive metric for determining "error" that the "church" would be responsible for. I think it is too strict, however I don't have a better process for measuring than the one he has proposed.