Can The Lds Church Make Mistakes?

[CASteinman]

I don't believe that any mistakes material to the mission of the Church have been made. I do think that there was a time when a mistake like that was about to be made and the Lord stepped in and fixed the problem by releasing someone from their calling.

I believe that is how it will continue to be until the Second Coming. Men must magnify their callings. Should they fail, they may be called to repent by the Spirit or by Messenger. Should they refuse, they may be released from their callings.

Edited June 30, 2012 by CASteinman

[DBMormon]

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.

So how do you reason when Elder Mark Peterson and Elder McConkie made seemingly racist comments trying to give shape to the policy and no one from the twelve stood up and called them out for how they created doctrine or perpetuated it regarding african americans.

consider the twelve apostles in Jesus' time. If three of them got up and said group so and so can't be exhalted and were not well behaved in the pre exisitence and the other 9 declined to speak up against them you would say that that was not the church? I disagree If one of the 15 top men speak on a subject and the other 14 decline to correct it or speak against it, you leave no choice then that to be taken as the church's position. If we can't acknowledge that then we give so many loopholes here that nothing except common consent could be considered a church position, yet we have many positions that were not given by common consent. Did I give a vote of common consent to name virtue as a YW's value? but it is. Did I for give common consent for scouts to be part of the church program... but it is. So in theory they are falliable but in reality they are no different then the position on the pope?

a related / unrelated question. Did Polygamy enter doctrine through common consent? Did it end by common consent?

Edited June 30, 2012 by DBMormon

[ERayR]

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

Who makes the call?

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

Again who makes the call?

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

Yes

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?

When incorporated into the Church in doctrine and practice.

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?

Who makes the call?

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.

I think it fits quite well.

[why me]

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 think that the D&C answers your question quite well: the lds church can make mistakes. The lord is chastising the members of the church for their behavior and he is also chastising Joseph Smith. As a church body in the early days, the church made a lot of mistakes in how they handled the gentiles that surrounded them. At times it is difficult to separate the church from its body of members.

[why me]

I'd say that restricting the priesthood from those of African descent is a pretty big error.

I don't know about that at all. I think that it was done for a reason: out of fear. You will need to listen to John Dehlin's podcast, Blacks and the Priesthood. Black Pete opened up a can of worms when he decided to do his own polygamy with white women without permission. I think that Brigham went into a panic as did Orson Hyde. Imagine the reaction of the gentiles if information about Black Pete and his wives would have reached the gentiles in Missouri. Not good. I do think that brigham and orson went overboard but I see it as damage control.

However, the church would have been a different apple if there wasn't the persecution following it around. If the lds church was free to worship freely without persecution, we would have seen a different church. And blacks would most likely had the priesthood even during Brigham's time. And we must remember they were welcome to become members.

Edited June 30, 2012 by why me

[DBMormon]

I'd say that restricting the priesthood from those of African descent is a pretty big error.

I also disagree. Was it a mistake for Peter not to give the gospel to the gentiles until he received revelation from God. Is it wrong to keep things the way they are until the Lord gives further light and knowledge? To do otherwise would be wrong.

My only problem is the explanations given by some leaders to give shape to the policy/doctrine. That was the incorrect part

[Bikeemikey]

As long as we are able to draw on extra-temporal sources to support decision making it is impossible to suggest the Church of making a "Mistake" with out the high likelihood that some one will say, "is it wrong to x until the lord says".

Are we are a church constituionally incapable of recognizing "mistakes", as the OP suggests? No.

Are there individuals who have the capacity to use doctrinal arguments to make the case that we are immune to "actual" error, yes.

I am with Selek1 to some degree however, there are very limited examples of "mistakes" performed by the Church that do not appear to be those of individuals.

[ERayR]

As long as we are able to draw on extra-temporal sources to support decision making it is impossible to suggest the Church of making a "Mistake" with out the high likelihood that some one will say, "is it wrong to x until the lord says".

Are we are a church constituionally incapable of recognizing "mistakes", as the OP suggests? No.

Are there individuals who have the capacity to use doctrinal arguments to make the case that we are immune to "actual" error, yes.

I am with Selek1 to some degree however, there are very limited examples of "mistakes" performed by the Church that do not appear to be those of individuals.

As I asked above, Who makes that call?

[Bikeemikey]

Who makes the call?

That is really the crux of the issue. The reason I disagree with Selek1's assessment is primarily on the grounds that it would always allow a well intentioned member of the Church to turn a "Church Mistake" into either a private act of a member or an act that has eternal merit that far outweigh the obvious negative impact that causes us to think it could be a mistake.

Selek1 has stated that this would not be the case, and that measurable temporal negative impacts would serve as sufficient evidence that the Church has made a mistake when such consequences are the result of policy, practice or doctrine formally expressed to be officially the "Churches" stance on the issue at hand.

However, as a Church we have an allegiance to an extra-temporal source of information via revelation and prophetic leadership.

As such, any empirical observation of real Church error or mistake would require more than just observable negative outcome from policy, practice or doctrine officially endorsed by the church. It would require the additional confirmation that such temporal negative outcomes were not justified due to greater non-temporal/eternal/celestial advantage. This confirmation could only come from one source. The Church itself, via the prophet and church leaders. These are the very individuals who would be making the mistake, were a mistake being made.

While I do not agree with the opening posts assertion that Mormons/the church are constitutionally incapable of admitting/recognizing mistakes, it is true the need for a third confirmation relative to the non-temporal impact of a decision must be weighed prior to saying something is a mistake creates an easy out for the Church to avoid needing to admit error.

If I think something is obviously a complete mistake, and by all temporal measures it was a wild failure, and their is consensus about this from the vast majority of parties, yet the prophet comes out and proclaims this was not a mistake, it looks like one but there is divine objectives and celestial goals being achieved... then I have a problem. As a faithful LDS member who believes in prophecy and revelation I will have to trust the prophet.

This is perhaps what the opening post was observing.

Do I have an issue with this? No, because I believe the leadership truly is inspired. For the non-believer it is just another brainwashing tool to create Church wide conformity and ignorance.

Have we made mistakes as a church, sure. Are some of them pretty bad, yeah (especially when one employs presentism to judge the past). Where any of them catastrophic? Not so far.

So who judges. Based on the need for non-temporal data, the only person able to judge if the Church made a mistake is the prophet. Obviously that is not good enough for the vast majority of the world who thinks the prophet is just an old guy who makes mistakes. Hence the conflict.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

It's been awhile since I've read the book, but IIRC the Prince and Wright bio of David O. McKay talked about how the Church got into problems in the 40s or 50s by having an overambitious building program and extending itself beyond a sound financial base. I see that as a mistake if his portrayal is accurate. The Church also took measures to remedy the situation to ensure it doesn't happen again so it's not one I am concerned about today.

"Baseball baptisms": I see it as being a mistake not having enough controls in place to prevent this from happening in the past. However, from what I have seen whenever this has happened countermeasures are put into place to improve controls.

Do these work as an example for you enough?

I suspect there are a lot of examples such as these where the Church has had policies that are not strict enough and they have stepped in to correct them or ones that are decent but they have made better (such as the rules to limit possibilities of child abuse and how to report them properly to the authorities).

As an institution in a changing culture, including economy and government, it takes time for the Church to catch up to changes. Sometimes this can lead to mistakes being made. As long as there are procedures in place for change which such mistakes are made, I don't see much to complain about.

Edited June 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Deborah]

The question I would ask is what is meant by a mistake. Being human we all err, including prophets and no doubt prophets have sometimes brought their personal ideas into policy or onto the pulpit. But I think we are treading dangerous ground when we start judging policies as "mistakes" or that we know better than the Prophet.

Joseph Smith said it best (and which I've quoted before):

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” Priesthood/RS Manual Chapter 27 Teachings of Joseph Smith.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Deborah

[robuchan]

I wonder if this thread goes a different way if the underlying context is whether the church is making a mistake for instance campaigning against gay marriage vs whether the church is making a mistake firing Dan Peterson?

[Deborah]

The Church also took measures to remedy the situation to ensure it doesn't happen again so it's not one I am concerned about today.

And I think that is important to remember that if something isn't working the church will work quickly to remedy it and prevent it happening again. That is why in the case of the Priesthood, for whatever reason, I don't believe it was a "mistake" because too many prophets for too long wanted to change it and prayed about it and could not get an answer until finally several factors came into play and combined for the perfect time and the revelation was received.

[ERayR]

That is really the crux of the issue. The reason I disagree with Selek1's assessment is primarily on the grounds that it would always allow a well intentioned member of the Church to turn a "Church Mistake" into either a private act of a member or an act that has eternal merit that far outweigh the obvious negative impact that causes us to think it could be a mistake.

Selek1 has stated that this would not be the case, and that measurable temporal negative impacts would serve as sufficient evidence that the Church has made a mistake when such consequences are the result of policy, practice or doctrine formally expressed to be officially the "Churches" stance on the issue at hand.

However, as a Church we have an allegiance to an extra-temporal source of information via revelation and prophetic leadership.

As such, any empirical observation of real Church error or mistake would require more than just observable negative outcome from policy, practice or doctrine officially endorsed by the church. It would require the additional confirmation that such temporal negative outcomes were not justified due to greater non-temporal/eternal/celestial advantage. This confirmation could only come from one source. The Church itself, via the prophet and church leaders. These are the very individuals who would be making the mistake, were a mistake being made.

While I do not agree with the opening posts assertion that Mormons/the church are constitutionally incapable of admitting/recognizing mistakes, it is true the need for a third confirmation relative to the non-temporal impact of a decision must be weighed prior to saying something is a mistake creates an easy out for the Church to avoid needing to admit error.

If I think something is obviously a complete mistake, and by all temporal measures it was a wild failure, and their is consensus about this from the vast majority of parties, yet the prophet comes out and proclaims this was not a mistake, it looks like one but there is divine objectives and celestial goals being achieved... then I have a problem. As a faithful LDS member who believes in prophecy and revelation I will have to trust the prophet.

This is perhaps what the opening post was observing.

Do I have an issue with this? No, because I believe the leadership truly is inspired. For the non-believer it is just another brainwashing tool to create Church wide conformity and ignorance.

Have we made mistakes as a church, sure. Are some of them pretty bad, yeah (especially when one employs presentism to judge the past). Where any of them catastrophic? Not so far.

So who judges. Based on the need for non-temporal data, the only person able to judge if the Church made a mistake is the prophet. Obviously that is not good enough for the vast majority of the world who thinks the prophet is just an old guy who makes mistakes. Hence the conflict.

So do we let critics of the church make the call?

What about Zion's camp? Was it a mistake? By most measurements it could be called that. Precious resources were expended that could have been used elsewhere. Precious manpower that could have been used in other worthwhile ways were expended. Many dropped out and went back home. When they got to Missouri they were disbanded and sent back home without ever even engaging their state objective. By all rational human measurements it was a failure. Yet when the saints were forced out of Nauvoo It was those who had completed the Zion's camp trek that led the exodus with the organizational skills learned and perfected on the Zion's camp trek.

So I ask again who makes the call.

[Deborah]

I wonder if this thread goes a different way if the underlying context is whether the church is making a mistake for instance campaigning against gay marriage vs whether the church is making a mistake firing Dan Peterson?

Well since "the church" didn't fire Br. Peterson as far as we know it's a moot point.

[ERayR]

The question I would ask is what is meant by a mistake. Being human we all err, including prophets and no doubt prophets have sometimes brought their personal ideas into policy or onto the pulpit. But I think we are treading dangerous ground when we start judging policies as "mistakes" or that we know better than the Prophet.

Joseph Smith said it best (and which I've quoted before):

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” Priesthood/RS Manual Chapter 27 Teachings of Joseph Smith.

Wish I could give a couple of mor rep points for that one.

[robuchan]

Well since "the church" didn't fire Br. Peterson as far as we know it's a moot point.

I got this from Wikipedia. Is it wrong?

Brigham Young University (often referred to as BYU, or sometimes just the Y) is a private university located in Provo, Utah. It is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and is the United States' largest religious university and third-largest private university.^[6][7]

[Deborah]

I got this from Wikipedia. Is it wrong?

It is my understanding that the MI is an arm of BYU but not BYU. In any case we don't know all the facts and from what he said on FB neither does Br. Peterson.

[ERayR]

I got this from Wikipedia. Is it wrong?

So! General Motors is/was a publicly traded corporation. General Motors has several subsidiary's. When an employee of a subsidiary is fired is it done by the shareholders who own the company, by the president of the parent corporation or the employees immediate supervisor.

[Calm]

the church is making a mistake firing Dan Peterson?

I believe the term is "assuming facts not in evidence."

[Calm]

Wish I could give a couple of mor rep points for that one.

Several of us agree apparently.

[Calm]

I got this from Wikipedia. Is it wrong?

Please point to what BYU/administration positions are held as callings/offices in the Church. Edited July 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[robuchan]

Please point to what BYU/administration positions are held as callings/offices in the Church.

The Board of Trustees, which are involved in every major decision at BYU.

[Calm]

The Board of Trustees, which are involved in every major decision at BYU.

So you think someone on the BoT for BYU signed off on Dan and the other editors' dismissal? (I'll even let you ignore the way it was done.)

What evidence do you have?

[ERayR]

So you think someone on the BoT for BYU signed off on Dan and the other editors' dismissal? (I'll even let you ignore the way it was done.)

What evidence do you have?

Who needs evidence?