Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[mathonihah]

... more like believed to be wrong. Each person subjectively chooses whether or not to agree with what they have said, and it's at least possible for people to think they were wrong when they were right.

Because you think they're wrong? While that may seem like a good reason, it could be that your thinking needs to be adjusted.

Blah blah blah. What "lots of LDS disagree with" doesn't mean what they disagree with is wrong. It just means they think it's wrong.

Not all LDS are as enlightened as those with the keys of the kingdom, don't cha know.

What happens when a Church leader says something that another Church leader disagrees with?

[Stone holm]

This is a very difficult area. I once listened to a Bishop say that he and his wife had been kind of following a group, not sure which it was that had been concerned about Pres Benson before he became Pres. But had more or less decided that they would turn a deaf ear to any criticism of the Lord's Anointed. So they had stood like an oak in the storm. At the time I had thought well I guess if that works for you. Well actually, it didn't wind up working for them as when the issues started hitting so close to them that they could not be ignored he wound up following his family straight out of the Church. I used to be of a somewhat similar mind, but have become a bit more like the willow. If you want to climb the hierarchy of the Church it's or if you like to give Sacrament talks I recommend you keep any opinions you have as to whether a GA has just said something not terribly brilliant or even patently wrong to yourself. If on the other hand you are beyond caring, then weigh what they have said and if it smells like something that has come out of the west end of a male cow, well call it what it is. If it looks like something that is being done for PR purposes or to snuggle up to our recent best friends the Evangelicals...well feel free to say so course none of that should be done from the pulpit. Course just remember such behavior is not for the timid and expect that you might not be asked to speak in Sacrament or get called to the High Council for a decade or so if ever.

[cinepro]

What happens when a Church leader says something that another Church leader disagrees with?

Maybe it will happen one day and we'll find out...

[mathonihah]

Maybe it will happen one day and we'll find out...

I thought it had already happened.

[pogi]

This is a very difficult area. I once listened to a Bishop say that he and his wife had been kind of following a group, not sure which it was that had been concerned about Pres Benson before he became Pres. But had more or less decided that they would turn a deaf ear to any criticism of the Lord's Anointed. So they had stood like an oak in the storm. At the time I had thought well I guess if that works for you. Well actually, it didn't wind up working for them as when the issues started hitting so close to them that they could not be ignored he wound up following his family straight out of the Church. I used to be of a somewhat similar mind, but have become a bit more like the willow. If you want to climb the hierarchy of the Church it's or if you like to give Sacrament talks I recommend you keep any opinions you have as to whether a GA has just said something not terribly brilliant or even patently wrong to yourself. If on the other hand you are beyond caring, then weigh what they have said and if it smells like something that has come out of the west end of a male cow, well call it what it is. If it looks like something that is being done for PR purposes or to snuggle up to our recent best friends the Evangelicals...well feel free to say so course none of that should be done from the pulpit. Course just remember such behavior is not for the timid and expect that you might not be asked to speak in Sacrament or get called to the High Council for a decade or so if ever.

I wish I would have known this trick last week! I got called to give a talk in sacrament this Sunday.

[canard78]

The reasoning is that the former Church leader was wrong.

Which, as far as I can tell, is a pretty good reason for disagreeing with someone.

For examples, here are some things Elder McConkie wrote in "Mormon Doctrine" that lots of LDS disagree with:

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=168

Hmm, how can someone so blatantly and offensively uninspired when writing this book be given any credibility in anything else he says.

As to the OP. Apologists have to 'deride*' some past GAs because if what they stated in print is taken as "truth" (e.g. Hill Cumorah in NY was the last battle location) then it entirely undermines what they are presenting as BOM evidence (or some other historical thorn).

Even Joseph Smith gets it. One very well respected apologist on an older thread explained away the Zelph 'revelation' and "plains of the Nephites" statement as: camp fire stories.

(*I agree with cal, I think this is too strong a word for what the apologists do. Deride means: Express contempt for; ridicule. Instead they might be discrediting what was said (not the person) or trying to demote what was said to opinion).

[canard78]

... more like believed to be wrong. Each person subjectively chooses whether or not to agree with what they have said, and it's at least possibl for people to think they were wrong when they were right

Because you think they're wrong? While that may seem like a good reason, it could be that your thinking needs to be adjusted.

Blah blah blah. What "lots of LDS disagree with" doesn't mean what they disagree with is wrong. It just means they think it's wrong.

Not all LDS are as enlightened as those with the keys of the kingdom, don't cha know.

Hold up Ahab, are you really saying that you 100% agree with every statement that was put in the blog? Did you read the full list?

Do you think BRM was right or wrong when he said:

- The catholic church is the 'great and abominable'

- The negroes carry the mark of cain and should not be married and caste systems are gospel inspired (I feel like being sick even for writing this down)

- Contraception is a sin

Do you agree with those statements? Do you think they are the truth? I certainly don't. I think he got it wrong and I place little credibility in anything of it.

[Ahab]

What happens when a Church leader says something that another Church leader disagrees with?

I suppose one would adjust his ideas and then they would both agree with each other.

Most of the time what I see, though, are people who are not Church leaders not agreeing with what Church leaders say and it's the people who are not Church leaders who need to adjust their ideas. Church leaders are generally right and others who disagree are generally wrong.

[Stone holm]

I suppose one would adjust his ideas and then they would both agree with each other.

Most of the time what I see, though, are people who are not Church leaders not agreeing with what Church leaders say and it's the people who are not Church leaders who need to adjust their ideas. Church leaders are generally right and others who disagree are generally wrong.

I would certainly hope so. Unfortunately, frequently we don't have the full story until decades later, and sometimes the GA just flat out get it wrong.

[ERayR]

What happens when a Church leader says something that another Church leader disagrees with?

There are two solutions as I see it.

1) Gather the adherents of both sides together and arm them with spears and swords and have at it. OR

2) Dueling pistols at dawn on temple square.

[Ahab]

...sometimes the GA just flat out get it wrong.

That seems to be the point you really want to make, while the point I really want to make is that at least most of the time, if not all of the time, Church leaders get it right and those who disagree with them are, generally, wrong.

Not that I wanted to start an arugment with you, but I did want to make my point perfectly clear, one more time.

[canard78]

That seems to be the point you really want to make, while the point I really want to make is that at least most of the time, if not all of the time, Church leaders get it right and those who disagree with them are, generally, wrong.

Not that I wanted to start an arugment with you, but I did want to make my point perfectly clear, one more time.

So, as asked in my previous post, do you think that McConkie got it all 'right' in Mormon Doctrine, or is some of it wrong?

[Yep]

Any authority could be wrong. It has biblical precident. How often were the apostles and prophets corrected? However, I think that it must be recognized that generally God corrects error fairly quickly.

[canard78]

Any authority could be wrong. It has biblical precident. How often were the apostles and prophets corrected? However, I think that it must be recognized that generally God corrects error fairly quickly.

Not really... NY Hill cumorah clearly isn't the setting for two battles that killed millions. Uncorrected for 150+ years.

First pres not called for 3 years after new prophet, not corrected until Lorenzo Snow.

Blacks and the priesthood, not corrected for 150+ years (even though Pres Kimball said it was an error and Hinkley called it an interpretation by the leaders of the day).

Blacks carry mark of cain and less valiant in pre-existence. Not corrected for 100+ years (in 1992 Mormon Doctrine's final print run was still saying Black people carry the mark of Cain)

Eternal damnation doesn't mean damnation without end, not corrected for 1000s of years (see D&C 19)

Paintings of the translation process, still used in official publication and not corrected. I know the paintings weren't done by authorities, but they approve their use.

History of the Church contains many inaccuracies (e.g. Zelph story), but continued to be published for many years and cited in D&C.

Mormon Doctrine (McConkie's) contains some horrible inaccuracies (e.g. The suggestion that caste systems are gospel principles and racial inter-marrying is bad). This statement (along with the suggestion contraception was sinful) are in my 1992 edition. Despite correcting the initial "catholics are the church of the devil" in the first edition, McConkie went to his grave with his name on an inaccurate and harmful book. It's been taken out of print, but no correction of the false doctrine has been made.

Can you show an example of quick correction?

[Stone holm]

I wish I would have known this trick last week! I got called to give a talk in sacrament this Sunday.

Shhh! Don't let the secret out, a stated objection or apparent disagreement with a GA a month keeps speaking assignments far away...lol

[ERayR]

So, as asked in my previous post, do you think that McConkie got it all 'right' in Mormon Doctrine, or is some of it wrong?

Got what right? Mormon Doctrine covers a lot of subjects. Some of them very much right on. Some of them maybe not so much. I don't think a blanket condemnation is in order. In fact I think probably most of it is correct. To be read with prayer and discernment.

[ERayR]

So, as asked in my previous post, do you think that McConkie got it all 'right' in Mormon Doctrine, or is some of it wrong?

Pretty high standard you are holding Elder McConkie to. I really don't think he is infallible. Then again not many are.

[ERayR]

Any authority could be wrong. It has biblical precident. How often were the apostles and prophets corrected? However, I think that it must be recognized that generally God corrects error fairly quickly.

I think not always

Edited March 16, 2013 by ERayR

[why me]

I think that one problem comes from the American cultural tradition of forming opinions from the position of truth. It basically has to do with cultural communication norms. The problem that past general authorities had was when opinion comes forth as their truth. There was no hedging on words by using I think, I believe. It was more in the line of I know.

I think that the current trend in the church is more of a I think or I believe when it comes to matters of just opinion. But in the past it was a definitely I know even in matters of opinion.

[why me]

So, as asked in my previous post, do you think that McConkie got it all 'right' in Mormon Doctrine, or is some of it wrong?

I think that this is a case in point. McConkie was giving his opinions as his truth and he wrote his book in such a way. And this ended him up in the stew pot. Likewise when he needed to retract when africans were given back the priesthood.

[why me]

I believe that edward kimball said it well about his father. He more or less stated that his father was not walking around in a trance as if god would speak to him every minute. Rather, his dad also needed to work out things in his mind through prayer. But at the end of the day, he was a man, a father and a prophet.

[media=]

It begins on 34:00.

Edited March 16, 2013 by why me

[CASteinman]

Now you are opening a whole new can of worms of what official doctrine really is. I would suggest that "published" does not equal "prophetic", or "official doctrine."

Official Doctrine is, by definition, that which is published officially by the Church. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong or prophetic or even whether it is printed in black ink or orange.

The trick is to be able to disagree with Church authorities without being disagreeable.

Actually the trick is to do that and not become an apostate. And there is one way you can be sure to achieve both ends: Keep your disagreements private or to yourself.

[canard78]

Pretty high standard you are holding Elder McConkie to. I really don't think he is infallible. Then again not many are.

You perhaps misunderstand me. I don't think Elder McConkie was infallible, not for a minute. Mormon Doctrine (even after edits) has enough to highlight his fallibility many times over.

The OP was asking why people 'deride' (or dismiss/discredit) the writings of GAs. I was trying to point out to the OP and the people posting in support of the OP that there are plenty of things GAs say and write that really should be dismissed/discredited because of the damage they could otherwise do.

The fact that Elder McConkie never corrected the statement that it was (in his opinion) Mormon Doctrine that caste systems are of God and inter-racial marriage wrong is (in my opinion) quite unpleasant.

While I don't expect perfect leaders, ones who can be so offensively off-beam are disconcerting. One would hope he had sought spiritual confirmation for the statements made in his book. If he did, then I can only presume he got a "false signal." If he didn't and printed without seeking inspiration for a book making such a big claim as clarifying Mormon Doctrine then he's irresponsible. Either way, it undermines my confidence in him and, to a certain extent, his calling.

[canard78]

Official Doctrine is, by definition, that which is published officially by the Church. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong or prophetic or even whether it is printed in black ink or orange.

CFR please that anything printed by the church is official doctrine.

Here's the church's definition of official doctrine:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Ensigns, manuals (including Handbook of Instruction), Conf talks are not official doctrine.

Actually the trick is to do that and not become an apostate. And there is one way you can be sure to achieve both ends: Keep your disagreements private or to yourself.

If a leader has given a statement or written a book that undermines the church's credibility or acceptability and is not based on official doctrine, I'd have no problem with someone pointing out the error. I wish more people had done so, sooner for blacks and the priesthood.

[CASteinman]

CFR please that anything printed by the church is official doctrine.

Its late and perhaps I should have been a bit more explicit.

Anything printed by the Church over the signatures of the FP and/or the 12 Apostles is official doctrine or whatever is printed as doctrine by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is a matter of plain and obvious definition. If you look up the word "official" in a dictionary it will reveal to you what the term "official" means. And if you look up the word "doctrine" you will see what that means. I trust I do not have to actually post that in such a pedantic manner.

Put the two meanings together and you will find what is 'official doctrine'. You will note that this has nothing to do with truth, beauty or the American Way.

Its just that this is official doctrine.

That is all.