Top 10 Mistakes

[canard78]

I think anyone who has been to the temple (at least before 1990) should be able to recognize the difference between things that were necessary to the ordinance itself and the parts that were clearly not ancient and unchanging.

To put it as clearly as I can here  - the things we are blessed with & given, taught how to do and covenant to do should not be altered, but how they are presented is probably what Joseph meant when he told Brigham that they were not arranged right.

Just my opinion.

 

True - and some of the statement in the drama that some women find quite offensive are not part of the core ordinance or covenants. They are part of the narrative and could, in theory, be adapted.

 

None of it needs to be 'ancient' to still be 'inspired and inspiring'

[JLHPROF]

For example, I'd like to put Polygamy on the bonfire of 'mistakes' - but it's in the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price (I think?). Add to that the fact that no modern leader has ever denounced it, I find it hard to justify being on the list.

Polyandry? Possibly easier to say he went to far (if you ignore the claim of an angel).

 

I think the biggest challenge the church faces with polygamy and even the polyandry of Joseph Smith isn't that these were mistakes, but that we are unwilling to really address the doctrinal beliefs that led to them, instead preferring to place sociological and temporal interpretations on them.

As willing as people are to "follow the prophet" they would probably have an easier time with an unpleasant doctrine than a social or personal error.

[canard78]

I think the biggest challenge the church faces with polygamy and even the polyandry of Joseph Smith isn't that these were mistakes, but that we are unwilling to really address the doctrinal beliefs that led to them, instead preferring to place sociological and temporal interpretations on them.

As willing as people are to "follow the prophet" they would probably have an easier time with an unpleasant doctrine than a social or personal error.

 

I don't particularly have a dog in the fight of polygamy/polyandry. 

 

I especially wish polyandry had never happened as it is not doctrinal (according to prescendent).

 

I would say that the entire priesthood and temple ban for blacks for 130 years was a mistake. I see no evidence to persuade me otherwise.

Edited October 8, 2013 by canard78

[JLHPROF]

I especially wish polyandry had never happened as it is not doctrinal (according to prescendent).

 

 

But people rarely address the issue that when D&C 132, and to be more precise, eternal marriage, was revealed many of the saints ceased to recognise their previous marriages as even existing or valid.  Numerous unproductive legal marriages also came to an end at this time (I wish I could remember where I read that reference, maybe in RSR).

 

To many of their eyes, until they had been sealed by priesthood authority they were all single again.

Joseph didn't consider himself polyandrous because he was the only one sealed to these women (mostly, there might have been an exception).

They were his wives and noone elses.

 

Their legal marriages were viewed as irrelevant, and even invalid.  He viewed these women as without eternal partners, and therefore single.

That is the "doctrine" behind the polyandry - The idea that worldly marriages mean nothing to God so were irrelevant.

[cdowis]

Top ten biggest mistakes the church has made, IMO:

 

10. The Family, and Other Living Things

9. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir's "Tribute to Tupac" CD

8. Saturday's Warrior

7. High Council speakers

6. The little factory analogy

5. The Investigator Extraction program

4. The passive triplet

3. Conference speakers who don't understand the 3-camera concept

2. The "chiasmus" lesson in the nursery manual

1. Hiring me

 

Making statements that the NY Hill Cumorah was the site of the last battle of the Nephites.

Eighteen month missions for elders

Getting involved in local politics in Missouri and Illinois (block voting)

Kirkland Safety Society -- ouch!

 

What was the "investigator extraction" program?  Sounds very painful.

[jkwilliams]

 

What was the "investigator extraction" program?  Sounds very painful.

 

It was a program in the Japan Tokyo South mission that makes "baseball baptisms" look like child's play.

[Judd]

It was a program in the Japan Tokyo South mission that makes "baseball baptisms" look like child's play.

Were not baseball baptisms child's play?

[jkwilliams]

Were not baseball baptisms child's play?

 

Excellent.

 

I think what was done with the portable fonts, 1-hour discussion marathons, and so forth crossed a line into evil, frankly. To do what they did is a mockery of what ought to be sacred ordinances.

[danieldemol]

After sitting through General Conference, and listening to the perspective of the speakers, I am firmly convinced that in the future, it will be so difficult for devout Mormon women to find suitable male companions that, the obvious will happen.

Was that a humorous dig at there being a lack of "suitable" males in a large male L.D.S population, or was that said hand on heart?

[EllenMaksoud]

Was that a humorous dig at there being a lack of "suitable" males in a large male L.D.S population, or was that said hand on heart?

I am not finding any.   The only guys that are interested in me specialize in covenant compromising.

[Sevenbak]

After sitting through General Conference, and listening to the perspective of the speakers,  I am firmly convinced that in the future, it will be so difficult for devout Mormon women to find suitable male companions that, the obvious will happen.

You mean Isaiah 4:1 obvious, or something else?

[Sevenbak]

Making statements that the NY Hill Cumorah was the site of the last battle of the Nephites.

Eighteen month missions for elders

Getting involved in local politics in Missouri and Illinois (block voting)

Kirkland Safety Society -- ouch!

 

What was the "investigator extraction" program?  Sounds very painful.

Well, I'll have to disagree with number one of course, but the others I concur with.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Sevenbak

[EllenMaksoud]

You mean Isaiah 4:1 obvious, or something else?

Well, truthfully I had not thought of that scripture, but it describes what I envision very well. Not that Mormon men or certain other men are evil, but somehow there are fewer men around, through war, disease, or ???  I will never say I am a prophet but sometimes I see things.

[WmLaw]

 

For example, I'd like to put Polygamy on the bonfire of 'mistakes' - but it's in the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price (I think?). Add to that the fact that no modern leader has ever denounced it, I find it hard to justify being on the list.

 

Polyandry? Possibly easier to say he went to far (if you ignore the claim of an angel).

 

Mentioned in those scriptures, yes.  An essential practice?  I don't see it...

 

I'm bothered by polyandry too, but mainly because it was a 'what the ???' moment, when i first heard about it's existence.  Maybe it was Calmoriah that said recently on another thread, something to the effect of 'what's good for the goose...' etc.  I guess if someone is ok with one man, plural wives - what's wrong with one woman, plural husbands...

[JLHPROF]

Mentioned in those scriptures, yes.  An essential practice?  I don't see it...

 

I'm bothered by polyandry too, but mainly because it was a 'what the ???' moment, when i first heard about it's existence.  Maybe it was Calmoriah that said recently on another thread, something to the effect of 'what's good for the goose...' etc.  I guess if someone is ok with one man, plural wives - what's wrong with one woman, plural husbands...

 

As I said in my earlier post - many of them didn't consider themselves polyandrous, they didn't consider themselves still married when they married Joseph Smith.  So they also didn't consider themselves as having multiple husbands.

[Calm]

But people rarely address the issue that when D&C 132, and to be more precise, eternal marriage, was revealed many of the saints ceased to recognise their previous marriages as even existing or valid.  Numerous unproductive legal marriages also came to an end at this time (I wish I could remember where I read that reference, maybe in RSR).

 

Wish you could too, as I have heard quite the opposite.  I think it would be very valuable to have this info.  I find it hard to believe it is in RSR as I think I would have heard of it more even if I missed reading it myself, I didn't read the book straight through but I think I covered that section pretty well.

 

And when exactly would this have taken place due to the slow revealing of the practice to the general membership?

 

Could you put some effort into tracking this down, please...not if it interferes with real life, but maybe time you would have spent just reading posts here.  

[Calm]

 Maybe it was Calmoriah that said recently on another thread, something to the effect of 'what's good for the goose...' etc.  I guess if someone is ok with one man, plural wives - what's wrong with one woman, plural husbands...

Could have been me.  I have never gotten why so many people feel there is a significant difference between sharing a husband and sharing a wife.  Surely if it is a morality issue, it would be the same for both genders.  If it is a legal issue...well, that might just be based on cultural assumptions of roles of men and women and have nothing to do with their eternal nature and relationship...after all I am sure we can find just as many examples of women being able to love multiple men morally as we can the reverse even if those relationships are sequential.  If it is a inheritance issue, then at least at this time that is no longer an issue.

[JLHPROF]

Wish you could too, as I have heard quite the opposite.  I think it would be very valuable to have this info.  I find it hard to believe it is in RSR as I think I would have heard of it more even if I missed reading it myself, I didn't read the book straight through but I think I covered that section pretty well.

 

And when exactly would this have taken place due to the slow revealing of the practice to the general membership?

 

Could you put some effort into tracking this down, please...not if it interferes with real life, but maybe time you would have spent just reading posts here.  

 

Ok, sometimes my memory amazes even me - reference is from Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy pgs 42 & 46 in the chapter on polyandry.

 

 

Pg 42 - Smith viewed as invalid those marriages not sealed by his blessing...Claiming sole responsiblity for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees.

 

Pg 46-47 - quoting John D. Lee - "About the same time the doctrine of 'sealing' was introduced...the saints were given to understand that their marriage relations with each other were not valid...If their marriage had not been productive of blessing and peace, and they felt it oppressive to remain together, they were at liberty to make their own choice, much as if they had not been married."

and quoting Increase McGee - "it is now the woman's privilege to choose whom she sees fit; if she likes the one she had been living with, she can keep him; if not, she is at liberty to ship him and take another;"

 

This is why the saints, including Joseph Smith and his wives, did not consider themselves polyandrous - only eternal sealings constituted valid marriages.

As people who believe in the priesthood keys, the keys of Elijah, and that eternal marriage is God's plan, perhaps we shouldn't view Joseph Smith as truly polyandrous either.

Edited October 8, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

Thank you very much...

[Calm]

The second quote is also referenced here if you are interested:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=aPrEwTzypR0C&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=%22the+saints+were+given+to+understand+that+their+marriage+relations+with+each+other+were+not+valid%22&source=bl&ots=x-DZfQZAJr&sig=q-imwf0weuVLyTQJI_j9F7isZd4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0ZJTUq6FJMm_qAG_5YCgAg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22the%20saints%20were%20given%20to%20understand%20that%20their%20marriage%20relations%20with%20each%20other%20were%20not%20valid%22&f=false

[thesometimesaint]

Are you talking about just mistaken teachings from church leaders or mistakes in general?  As for the latter, the D/C is full of examples where the church body (not just the leaders) failed to live up to something: United Order, WOW, redemption of Zion (jackson county), etc.

 

If you're looking for significant mistakes by church leaders, I would consider:

• Joseph burning down the expositor (though technically legal)
• Joseph Sr's alcholism and love of magic (not too different from his contemporaries)
• Brigham's racism and violence (not too different from his contemporaries)
• Joseph F. Smith's perjury to congress re polygamy during the Smoot hearings
• Failure to build up the church in foreign lands until the mid-1930s (+/- decade) under the belief that all should be physically gathered together.
• Building non-square temples in Ogden and Provo (at least for Nibley)
• Failure to properly prepare BYU for the Utah game the past 4 years (IMO, unforgiveable)

If you're looking for significant teachings that have been discarded or downplayed:

• Adam-God
• Temple vengence oaths
• D/C's requirement that tithing apply to all assets of a new member upon joining (removed by Pres. Snow)
• Large portions of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine
• Incapatability of scripture with (i) LGT, (ii) local flood, (iii) evolution, or other scientic issues
• Contraception is contrary to God's plan
• Gays should marry someone of the opposite sex in order to be cured.

 

*** Note ***  In making lists such as this, it would also be helpful to list the many inspired and wise choices made by leaders.  IMO, it would be much easier to come up with a top 10, or top 100 , or top 1000 list of good decisions than to make a list of mistakes.

 

The LDS have been in Hawaii since 1850.

[canard78]

But people rarely address the issue that when D&C 132, and to be more precise, eternal marriage, was revealed many of the saints ceased to recognise their previous marriages as even existing or valid.  Numerous unproductive legal marriages also came to an end at this time (I wish I could remember where I read that reference, maybe in RSR).

 

To many of their eyes, until they had been sealed by priesthood authority they were all single again.

Joseph didn't consider himself polyandrous because he was the only one sealed to these women (mostly, there might have been an exception).

They were his wives and noone elses.

 

Their legal marriages were viewed as irrelevant, and even invalid.  He viewed these women as without eternal partners, and therefore single.

That is the "doctrine" behind the polyandry - The idea that worldly marriages mean nothing to God so were irrelevant.

 

Could you provide some references for this please. They seem to be pretty specific so I'm wondering if you can point me towards where you read this.

 

I'd be interested in you considering the marriage to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young. She was married to Henry Jacobs and was expecting a child when she was married to Joseph and then went on to have a second child with Henry.

[canard78]

• Joseph burning down the expositor (though technically legal)

 

The destruction of the press was actually illegal. The city council could have got away with just destroying the papers (which alone was legal).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

“Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past.  We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church History, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.  Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience.  When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.  Sometimes there’s a difference of opinion as to what the facts really mean.  A question that creates doubt in some, can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.  And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.  I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works thru us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.”  - President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Oct. 05, 20

 

In light of President Uchtdorf's marvelous talk last Saturday, I've started to compile my Top 10 List of things that I have long considered to be possible mistakes from Church History.  I'm looking for some help from the thoughtful people here to finish off my list.  Here's what I have so far (not necessarily in order):

 

1. Polygamy 

2. Canonization of the BOA

3. Idolization of JS

4. Idolization of BY, and subsequent Presidents of the Church

5. The MMM

6. Withholding the Priesthood from Blacks

7. Subjugation of female roles (i.e. thru unfortunate language in temple ordinances, etc.)

8. 

9.

10.

 

other thoughts?

This is an official call for a CFR (if such things are still to be answered) on your list of "mistakes" most certainly that the Church conducted or had conducted number 5, on you list. MMM was murder, horror without end and those men forever damed. Is this is what it has come to, listing mistakes by opinion of our faith?

[cinepro]

“Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past.  We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church History, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.  Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience.  When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.  Sometimes there’s a difference of opinion as to what the facts really mean.  A question that creates doubt in some, can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.  And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.  I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works thru us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.”  - President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Oct. 05, 20

 

In light of President Uchtdorf's marvelous talk last Saturday, I've started to compile my Top 10 List of things that I have long considered to be possible mistakes from Church History.  I'm looking for some help from the thoughtful people here to finish off my list.  Here's what I have so far (not necessarily in order):

 

1. Polygamy 

2. Canonization of the BOA

3. Idolization of JS

4. Idolization of BY, and subsequent Presidents of the Church

5. The MMM

6. Withholding the Priesthood from Blacks

7. Subjugation of female roles (i.e. thru unfortunate language in temple ordinances, etc.)

8. 

9.

10.

 

other thoughts?

 

I've pointed out before the absurdity of having a Church representative acknowledge "mistakes" without actually explaining what those mistakes were. 

 

He needed to say this:

 

And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. For example..."

 

Without that, he has simply stated the obvious and without any additional context, members are left to try and figure it out for themselves (see: the OP). 

 

So I, speaking for all members who might be wondering what those mistakes were, say to President Uchtdorf: "Thank you for nothing."