Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[DBMormon]

In recent conferences we have had an abundance of reminders of the falliability of Members in general and in Leaders specifically and not to have unrealistic expectations of them. For example in the past April Conference Elder Holland said the following - "So be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work."

 

And in even stronger words, President Uchtdorf said this in the most recent conference - "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."

 

This emphasis on the fallibility of leaders including prophets and apostles has been as strong as I have ever seen in my short time in the Church (baptized in 96' though a reader of prior church history).  In times past this message was subtle and could be easily over shadowed by other teachings but now it rings loud and clear.  

 

This is huge for many reasons, and perhaps most importantly to validate the letdown many have felt as they have discovered flaws among the leaders of a faith, that they had previously been taught to revere as something larger then life & expect near perfection from (a false assumption I grant)

 

My question though is this.

 

Does this admittance of Mistakes fall short due to the reluctance to be specific on what mistakes have been made?

 

By not being specific you can be seen as playing the fence.  By this I mean that the side aware of flaws is validated and yet the naive to the mistakes don't have to deal with them in a real confrontational way.

 

For example - while admitting mistakes by leaders - some members can continue to defend these suspected mistakes as not what Elder Uchtdorf is speaking about.   They can claim he is only speaking of local leaders and not the brethren.  They could use his statement to only apply to Mountain Meadows and a corrupt Bishop here or there and never see it applying in a real way to how the Church history truly unfolded.

 

One could claim these mistakes do not apply to perceived errors such as with-holding priesthood from some prior to 78' or to other sources of error and mistakes  pushed across as truth and doctrine. There is a whole list of what Elder Uchtdorf is likely pointing to and that can be discussed if needed.  But what are the specific mistakes?  How can we move away from erros and false teachings if unwilling to name the mistakes specifically?  

 

In order for the Church to truly move past these "mistakes" Do we need to name them specifically?  And if that is not needed, then does the false assumption really get addressed in a way that it enlightens those who do not grasp the breadth of Elder Uchtdorf's quote?  That in essence, serious mistakes have been made, mistakes that could cause one to lose faith in the restoration.  And that by acknowledging this, we actually are better prepared to handle faliiability while still having faith in the truth claims of the Church

Edited November 3, 2013 by DBMormon

[JLHPROF]

 

My question though is this.

 

Does this admittance of Mistakes fall short due to the reluctance to be specific on what mistakes have been made?

 

By not being specific you can be seen as playing the fence.  By this I mean that the side aware of flaws is validated and yet the naive to the mistakes don't have to deal with them in a real confrontational way.

 

For example - while admitting mistakes by leaders - some members can continue to defend these suspected mistakes as not what Elder Uchtdorf is speaking about.   They can claim he is only speaking of local leaders and not the brethren.  They could use his statement to only apply to Mountain Meadows and a corrupt Bishop here or there and never see it applying in a real way to how the Church history truly unfolded.

 

I don't think anything is to be gained by dwelling on action or inaction mistakes or dissecting them to the iota. 

 

As far as administrative mistakes, well, I don't really care.  How things are run or money is spent, or who gets what calling is not part of my religion.

 

I think doctrinal mistakes in teachings are worthy of discussion since more information prevents more mistakes.  And I think that we continue to make them when we don't discuss doctrine openly or provide a forumn for deep discussion and even speculation.

Edited November 3, 2013 by JLHPROF

[omni]

How can we learn from our past mistakes if we aren't aware they ever occurred?

[Duncan]

How can we learn from our past mistakes if we aren't aware they ever occurred?

 

true but what good does it do if it happened 150 years like if Wilford Woodruff smoked cannabis or something, like okay... big deal! his mistake is not my mistake 

[SeattleGrunge]

I'm interested in following this.  I've posed this question myself in a few places and never gotten a very concise answer.

[Storm Rider]

I think some of us, in a logical manner, like to beat a dead horse. We tend to relish in self-immolation particularly when we can force the other guy to do the self immolating. When I look at the history of God's deals with his children there have been very few times when his people or his Church stood up as a group and began to list all their mistakes. There were times of communal repentance and there have been many more times where repentance was called for of his people.

 

Do I think it would be healthy for the Church to begin to list all of her mistakes?  When is it the Church's mistakes and when is it a leaders?  I am not sure this is as valuable as more of a blanket recognition of error's existence, apology for pain caused, and a desire to move forward.

 

I appreciate the acknowledgements that have been made already. For those who know the problems, you have the acknowledgement; for those who do not know they have something to build on should they come upon something that disturbs them. 

 

As I think of this topic I reflect on how Pope Francis is reforming the Catholic Church at present. He has not laid down and beat his back with a whip, but he has pointed a direction and said this is where we are going. This seems to work well and I see our leaders doing something similar, but maybe with a certain tentative stepping.  Can you imagine what the CC would need to do if it came clean on the Vatican Bank issues; much less anything they are dealing with as an organization. 

 

In closing, I would like to remind each of us that the majority of saints don't give to hoots on a dark night what history is. They are concerned about the Church today; what it is teaching; what it is doing; is it meeting their needs; do they feel inspired; does it lead to happiness; does it bring us closer to our Father; does it enable us to overcome the trials and tribulations in our individual lives.  There is little difference between ancient past and the recent past; we just tend to know more about the recent past - the reality is TODAY.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

................................................

past April Conference Elder Holland said the following - "So be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work."

 

..... President Uchtdorf said this in the most recent conference - "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."

........................................................    

This is huge for many reasons, and perhaps most importantly to validate the letdown many have felt as they have discovered flaws among the leaders of a faith, that they had previously been taught to revere as something larger then life & expect near perfection from (a false assumption I grant)

.........................................................   

Does this admittance of Mistakes fall short due to the reluctance to be specific on what mistakes have been made?

 

By not being specific you can be seen as playing the fence.  By this I mean that the side aware of flaws is validated and yet the naive to the mistakes don't have to deal with them in a real confrontational way.

 

For example - while admitting mistakes by leaders - some members can continue to defend these suspected mistakes as not what Elder Uchtdorf is speaking about.   They can claim he is only speaking of local leaders and not the brethren.  They could use his statement to only apply to Mountain Meadows and a corrupt Bishop here or there and never see it applying in a real way to how the Church history truly unfolded.

 

One could claim these mistakes do not apply to perceived errors such as with-holding priesthood from some prior to 78' or to other sources of error and mistakes  pushed across as truth and doctrine. There is a whole list of what Elder Uchtdorf is likely pointing to and that can be discussed if needed.  But what are the specific mistakes?  How can we move away from erros and false teachings if unwilling to name the mistakes specifically?  

 

In order for the Church to truly move past these "mistakes" Do we need to name them specifically?  And if that is not needed, then does the false assumption really get addressed in a way that it enlightens those who do not grasp the breadth of Elder Uchtdorf's quote?  That in essence, serious mistakes have been made, mistakes that could cause one to.  And that by acknowledging this, we actually are better prepared to handle faliiability while still having faith in the truth claims of the Church

 

There is nothing new in the fallibility of leaders of the Kingdom of God on Earth.  In  the New Testament, we find St Paul declaring that the treasure of the Gospel is spread by humans made of clay ("earthen vessels" in 2 Cor 4:7), and the prophets of the OT were clearly fallible and very human.  Pres Uchtdorf and Elder Holland recently mentioned that fact simply because there are always some people both in and out of the true Church who have believed in and spread the false doctrine of infallibility.  You state that it is "a false assumption," and you are right, although you simultaneously seem to think that previous generations actually believed in such a false doctrine -- which is not true.  That is a false doctrine spread because it is a convenient straw man.

 

What is true is simply that the fallibility of human leaders is a key point of LDS doctrine, and always has been.  Joseph Smith used to ask members to please put up with his shortcomings and he'd put with theirs.  Mormon history-writing is filled with factual details on the mistakes made by the Latter-day Saints and their leaders, and this is magnified many times over by anti-Mormon writings (I guess we have to be blamed for everything by our detractors) -- even though those ill-wishers never mention the mistakes they have made, or the bearing of false witness they have done.

 

You will need to do a lot of reading to get the straight scoop.  I would suggest that you begin with Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, and go on from there.

[Thinking]

In my opinion, minor behavioral mistakes are much different than doctrinal or procedural mistakes.

[Scott Lloyd]

Haven't we already done this?

 

As I recall, it resulted in a list of nitpicky little things of which most were debatable as to whether they really constituted mistakes.

 

It got rather tiresome, frankly.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

In my opinion, minor behavioral mistakes are much different than doctrinal or procedural mistakes.

It depends on the gravity of the mistake.  Apostles and other General Authorities have been excommunicated for certain mistakes, as have lesser leaders.  There is also a world of difference between procedural errors and doctrinal errors.

[thesometimesaint]

Stones and glass houses.

[DBMormon]

But, if we never lay out our mistakes specifically, are we then guilty when the next generation picks up speculative beliefs, false doctrines, incorrect teachings and the like?  In otherwords we are likely to repeat those mistakes if we are not willing to name them.

 

Also we are not talking general mistakes.  We are talking mistakes that cause people to leave the Church.  That is the type of mistake Elder Uchtdorf is speaking about.  I think that narrows down which mistakes and why it might be important to name them so as to prevent the next generation from leaving.

-  sharing opinions on science when there is no Doctrine

-  Admitting the no priesthood to blacks was not a doctrine or even a good policy but rather a bad policy

-  "Mormon Doctrine" being thought of as just that a complete book of Mormon Doctrine

-  excommunicating people who simply shared history and perspective when we would rather have swept it under the rug

 

And if we are going to deny that these kinds of mistakes don't happen (whether specifically these one or others) then we are minimizing the mistakes Elder Uchtdorf is speaking of.  He is validating that some of the reasons people leave are based legitimate mistakes by leaders that go against our Doctrine and values, so on some level we can't say "yes we made mistakes, but all of those problems you listed in why you left, those are not really mistakes"

[Rivers]

The problem is that everybody is not going to agree on what was a mistake and what wasn't a mistake. 

[CV75]

In order for the Church to truly move past these "mistakes" Do we need to name them specifically?  And if that is not needed, then does the false assumption really get addressed in a way that it enlightens those who do not grasp the breadth of Elder Uchtdorf's quote?  That in essence, serious mistakes have been made, mistakes that could cause one to lose faith in the restoration.  And that by acknowledging this, we actually are better prepared to handle faliiability while still having faith in the truth claims of the Church

 

I think the point is that the Holy Spirit helps us recognize that the real success of the “Perfect Holy One” ameliorates the mistakes of His fallible servants, including each individual member. I sustain Elders Holland and Uchtdorf as speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost and hopefully I heard them right.

 

I think it is better to focus on things of the Spirit than the mistakes of men. Yes, we can learn from mistakes, but delving into the “mysteries of the kingdom” rather than the dynamics of root cause, error, fault and blame keeps everything in perspective, since being fallible, God’s children are bound to continue to make the same kinds of spiritual mistakes from generation to generation: “For ye have the poor [the fallible] with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good [be kind, forgiving, helpful, “deal”]: but me ye have not always.” If we put Jesus first, we will tend to the needs of the poor and the fallible in proper order, and not condemn them while we should be praising God.

 

Sin and apostasy are intentional and altogether different from mistakes, and the Church has the keys to address these as well.

[Tacenda]

They don't want to bring up specific mistakes made by past prophets because they don't want to lose the credibility of prophets speaking from God, once that goes, the church is no longer unique.

[CV75]

They don't want to bring up specific mistakes made by past prophets because they don't want to lose the credibility of prophets speaking from God, once that goes, the church is no longer unique.

I think it is more personal than that. Just as we can consider the poor who have died as being relieved of their poverty, we can also consider the fallible that have died as being relieved of their mistakes. And as we can count ourselves blessed that we are not poor, and can help the poor that are still living, we can consider ourselves blessed where we have not made mistakes, and charitably help those who are living that do.

[CV75]

And if we are going to deny that these kinds of mistakes don't happen (whether specifically these one or others) then we are minimizing the mistakes Elder Uchtdorf is speaking of.  He is validating that some of the reasons people leave are based legitimate mistakes by leaders that go against our Doctrine and values, so on some level we can't say "yes we made mistakes, but all of those problems you listed in why you left, those are not really mistakes"

Mistakes, real or perceived, do not cause people to leave the Church. Their reaction to them does. Each hurting person needs to be ministered to individually, since so much of their reason for leaving is personal.

 

If our leaders know of mistakes and aberrations from the Lord’s will, doctrine and values, they correct them, so there is really no more current problem to contend against. If forgiveness of sin is commanded of all of us, then this goes even more for mistakes and accusations of wrong-doing when we haven't all the facts or simply don't know.

[thesometimesaint]

But, if we never lay out our mistakes specifically, are we then guilty when the next generation picks up speculative beliefs, false doctrines, incorrect teachings and the like?  In otherwords we are likely to repeat those mistakes if we are not willing to name them.

 

Also we are not talking general mistakes.  We are talking mistakes that cause people to leave the Church.  That is the type of mistake Elder Uchtdorf is speaking about.  I think that narrows down which mistakes and why it might be important to name them so as to prevent the next generation from leaving.

-  sharing opinions on science when there is no Doctrine

-  Admitting the no priesthood to blacks was not a doctrine or even a good policy but rather a bad policy

-  "Mormon Doctrine" being thought of as just that a complete book of Mormon Doctrine

-  excommunicating people who simply shared history and perspective when we would rather have swept it under the rug

 

And if we are going to deny that these kinds of mistakes don't happen (whether specifically these one or others) then we are minimizing the mistakes Elder Uchtdorf is speaking of.  He is validating that some of the reasons people leave are based legitimate mistakes by leaders that go against our Doctrine and values, so on some level we can't say "yes we made mistakes, but all of those problems you listed in why you left, those are not really mistakes"

I'm not poopooing the idea that leaving the Church isn't a serious concern. But really if someone is looking for a "cause" to do it, any excuse will do. Heck I've even knew people whom left the Church because it changed its names of the Improvement Era to the Ensign. If we(individually) don't take the time to find out what LDS doctrine actually is, and then gain a testamony of the Gospel, there isn't much that the Church or anyone else can do about it.

[Stone holm]

There is the old saying, " The Catholic doctrine is the Pope infallible and Catholics don't believe it, Mormon doctrine is that the Prophet is fallible and Mormons don't believe it."

[Calm]

If we as individuals can put behind us our mistakes through baptism and the renewal of covenants through the sacrament, I do not see why the Church as a whole should be held to a different standard of constantly revisiting past mistakes, detailing them for public consumption, etc....especially if those who committed them are now dead.

 

Doctrinal mistakes that can lead to further misunderstandings should be corrected but that can be done by giving correct info, one doesn't need to continually state "so and so taught this and he was wrong, this is the correct doctrine".

Edited November 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tiki]

Crazy, a hobby by some members to point out the "fallibilities of prophets" all to remove the Prophets as if they were a hinderance to their pet hobby, profession or moonlighting revenue.

D&C 121: 16-22

And Verse 23: "Wo unto all those that discomfort my people,"

"Joseph Smith didn't understand Book of Mormon Geography," we can read from latter-day scribes. "He learned it from John Lloyd Stephens book."

"Joseph Smith wasn't trained in archeology so he no more could interpret his visions as could a common member of the church," to paraphrase another here.

"When a man becomes a prophet, God does not instantly answer all questions and concerns about all aspects of the gospel (especially peripheral aspects such as geography)" to quote another holder of the Priesthood.

You bet, let's all point out the Fallibility of Prophets to further your life's goals. It makes you look so very intelligent.

[Tiki]

Crazy, a hobby by some members to point out the "fallibilities of prophets" all to remove the Prophets as if they were a hinderance to their pet hobby, profession or moonlighting revenue.

D&C 121: 16-22

And Verse 23: "Wo unto all those that discomfort my people,"

"Joseph Smith didn't understand Book of Mormon Geography," we can read from latter-day scribes. "He learned it from John Lloyd Stephens book."

"Joseph Smith wasn't trained in archeology so he no more could interpret his visions as could a common member of the church," to paraphrase another here.

"When a man becomes a prophet, God does not instantly answer all questions and concerns about all aspects of the gospel (especially peripheral aspects such as geography)" to quote another holder of the Priesthood.

You bet, let's all point out the Fallibility of Prophets to further your life's goals. It makes you look so very intelligent.

There. I have an ability to point out specific mistakes, while allsyall glory in pointing out mistakes of the Prophets.

[3DOP]

There is the old saying, " The Catholic doctrine is the Pope infallible and Catholics don't believe it, Mormon doctrine is that the Prophet is fallible and Mormons don't believe it."

 

Its a neat saying.

 

I would like to take the opportunity to say that according to how I understand it, the pope is almost never infallible. His infallibility, according to Catholic doctrine is so narrowly defined that it is plausible to say that only two popes in history have ever made infallible definitions of doctrine. Even in those cases, the bishops of the world were consulted and the doctrines that were defined, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, were doctrines that had already been widely taught by what is called the church's ordinary magesterium. The Assumption had already been the fourth glorious mystery of the Rosary for about eight hundred years. Churches had been named Immaculate Conception or Assumption and solemn feast days had been celebrated in honor of these teachings. The infallible definitions were promulgated with great celebrations by the faithful, but not because they were new teachings.The defined doctrines of Pius IX and XII had been developed and taught as a part of Catholic tradition for literally centuries.

 

When Pope John Paul II discussed the subject of female priests, many thought/hoped that such a pope would bring about change. But he affirmed the pope's lack of authority, saying that he had no authority to change the church's position. That is the kind of humility I would rejoice to see in the current pope. Instead, he seems content to allow non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics, who are understandably unfamiliar with the limitations of papal authority, to imagine that a reigning pontiff has the authority, if he chooses, to virtually turn the Catholic Church upside down. I am not saying that is the goal of Pope Francis. I am just saying most people don't understand at all about the limitations of the pope and it leads to crazy speculations about sweeping changes that cannot happen. Admittedly there are many modern Catholics, even ones who sometimes go to Mass, who believe whatever the current pope says, without regard to his predecessors. But they are already forgetful of the fact, recently reiterated by a popular pope of our times, that no pope has the authority to overturn what has been previously established. The authority of a pope does not end with his death. Dead popes carry as much weight as living popes with regard to teaching authority.

 

If my view of the papacy is a minority with regards to most living Catholics and non-Catholics, we have learned here in America, with the election of the first Catholic President, that sometimes the dead get a vote. When it comes to Catholic dogma, the "vote" of the dead  always counts. To forget that is to be susceptible to great misguidance as to the possible future of the Catholic Church.

 

3DOP

Edited November 3, 2013 by 3DOP

[canard78]

They don't want to bring up specific mistakes made by past prophets because they don't want to lose the credibility of prophets speaking from God, once that goes, the church is no longer unique.

This is very succinct and a very pertinent challenge.

Some members depend on the credibility of prophets and not questioning them.

I spoke to a member who had recently read the talk from Elder McConkie where he said "forget everything I said (about blacks and the priesthood)... we spoke with a limited light."

The member was deeply disturbed by this and said "how is it possible, he's an apostle, he's supposed to be inspired."

The Brethren can't simply stand up and start listing all the things that were done in error because it would be more hurtful to more people than to not list the mistakes.

I've many close friends and family who would be in that group of people who would be hurt. If the choice were up to me I'd rather protect their feelings than some big "mea culpa" process.

[canard78]

The problem is that everybody is not going to agree on what was a mistake and what wasn't a mistake.

And given some of those mistakes would be times when dead prophets thought they were inspired we can't really ask living prophets to seek inspiration to identify the mistakes!