Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[Stone holm]

 

 

 

 

I agree, neither can I.  But let me tell you the issue and a solution kinder and more effective then what you are saying you can't imagine.

Elder McConkie had a tendency to see his beliefs as authoritative.  He saw he framework as Doctrine.  He also when others shared their beliefs publicly that were different then what he saw as the accepted Doctrine (based on his view) he was very liberal in offering correction and trying to get people to see him as right and themselves as out of line.

 

He got up and gave a talk at BYU that said Evolution was a heresy in spite of the First Presidency refusing to take that stance. ( there is something wrong with that picture.

 

The answer is not to throw him under the bus and say what you suggested you can't imagine.  Rather I can easily see a leader saying something like this.

 

 

 

From time to time a number of people have been thrown under the bus either in the scientific community or among the Brethren.  The current rage is to blame the entire African descent ban on BY and throw him under the bus.  Preferrable route would be if people would just quit denying that we are all heavily influenced by our culture and upbringing and quit trying to assert that GAs are somehow not touched by the same.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree, one unofficial statement replacing another is not a fix.  That said there are plenty of official views or better historical context that contradicts what the majority believe such as Tithing not necessarily Gross, evolution not doctrinally defined as having happened or not happened, Seer Stone used for translation. age of the Earth unknown, ect.. that there is much we can address openly and with confidence.

At this point, I am left wondering who it is you think has made mistakes that require official acknowledgement by the Church or its officers.

 

Take, for example, the matter of the age of the earth. I have, within the past couple of days, begun re-reading the Old Testament in preparation for next year's gospel doctrine course of study in Sunday School. Concurrent with that, I am going through the applicable commentary in the Old Testament Student Manual used in Institute classes so I can be well-acquainted with the Church's stance on Old Testament topics.

 

Just yesterday, I read the portion in Chapter 1, "How Old Is the Earth?" It briefly summarizes three theories among those who subscribe to the scriptural account of the earth's creation, including the theory that the word day in the creation account refers to a period of undetermined length of time, thus suggesting an era, and thus being consistent with the evidence seen by science supporting a very old age for the earth.

 

The Student Manual then makes this point:

 

While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77-79), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable.

 

So, if an official Church-published student manual makes this point clear, for what should the Church or its officers apologize or acknowledge error? Is it to be held accountable for the non-doctrinal folk beliefs held by this or that individual on this or other topics, an individual who perhaps is more apt to parrot what he has heard by word-of-mouth for years than to actually delve into approved Church publications or pronouncements?

Edited November 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

At this point, I am left wondering who it is you think has made mistakes that require official acknowledgement by the Church or its officers.

 

For that matter Scott, let's ask this.  Who/what mistakes was Pres. Uchtdorf speaking about about?  He frankly said at times that leaders have made mistakes inconsistent with our Doctrine and Values.  He apparently is aware of mistakes, ones serious enough to have some people considering leaving or having actually left.  What are those?  We can't say yes we have made serious mistakes and then when a list is provided, say none of those are the one we are speaking about.  That would fail on several fronts.  President Uchtdorf seems to be telling those struggling or who have left "I know some of you have had a hard time with some of the things you have discovered in Church History and with our leaders, and yes some of those things are real mistakes and not just you imagining things or drawing conclusions that are completely unfair"

 

Who I think has made mistakes in the end is irrelevant other then Pres. Uchtdorf and I both agree and acknowledge that serious mistakes have occurred and cause members to doubt their faith.  I would be more concerned with the mistakes he is acknowledging. 

Edited November 11, 2013 by DBMormon

[Stone holm]

At this point, I am left wondering who it is you think has made mistakes that require official acknowledgement by the Church or its officers.

 

Take, for example, the matter of the age of the earth. I have, within the past couple of days, begun re-reading the Old Testament in preparation for next year's gospel doctrine course of study in Sunday School. Concurrent with that, I am going through the applicable commentary in the Old Testament Student Manual used in Institute classes so I can be well-acquainted with the Church's stance on Old Testament topics.

 

Just yesterday, I read the portion in Chapter 1, "How Old Is the Earth?" It briefly summarizes three theories among those who subscribe to the scriptural account of the earth's creation, including the theory that the word day in the creation account refers to a period of undetermined length of time, thus suggesting an era, and thus being consistent with the evidence seen by science supporting a very old age for the earth.

 

The Student Manual then makes this point:

 

So, if an official Church-published student manual makes this point clear, for what should the Church or its officers apologize or acknowledge error? Is it to be held accountable for the non-doctrinal folk beliefs held by this or that individual on this or other topics, an individual who perhaps is more apt to parrot what he has heard by word-of-mouth for years than to actually delve into approved Church publications or pronouncements?

What was the position taken by Joseph Fielding Smith in his writings prior to his ascension to the Presidency?

[CV75]

For that matter Scott, let's ask this.  Who/what mistakes was Pres. Uchtdorf speaking about about?  He frankly said at times that leaders have made mistakes inconsistent with our Doctrine and Values.  He apparently is aware of mistakes, ones serious enough to have some people considering leaving or having actually left.  What are those?  We can't say yes we have made serious mistakes and then when a list is provided, say none of those are the one we are speaking about.  That would fail on several fronts.  President Uchtdorf seems to be telling those struggling or who have left "I know some of you have had a hard time with some of the things you have discovered in Church History and with our leaders, and yes some of those things are real mistakes and not just you imagining things or drawing conclusions that are completely unfair"

 

Who I think has made mistakes in the end is irrelevant other then Pres. Uchtdorf and I both agree and acknowledge that serious mistakes have occurred and cause members to doubt their faith.  I would be more concerned with the mistakes he is acknowledging. 

Hold on a minute: he never said “serious mistakes.” He said: “…no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.” So the mistakes are not significant; they are not serious.

 

He also said, “…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.” He did not say “serious mistakes,” and he lumps members with the leaders, who are equally as prone to being catalysts for others’ stumbling. He uses the word “may”—he isn’t judging or condemning specifics and so does not need to provide a list or examples.

 

“I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.” No mistake is so serious that it warrants the members to drift from their appointed course of fulfill their divine destiny.

 

“…if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God…” Again, in the big picture, no fault or mistake is really so serious as to condemn or drift away from the Church.

 

“It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed.” This means those who have stumbled may still find redemption through the Church, which continues to be run by imperfect beings.

[jkwilliams]

This discussion is just weird to me. It seems as if some people are saying it's OK to acknowledge in a general way that mistakes have been made, but it's not OK to be specific. Am I missing something?

[Scott Lloyd]

For that matter Scott, let's ask this.  Who/what mistakes was Pres. Uchtdorf speaking about about?  He frankly said at times that leaders have made mistakes inconsistent with our Doctrine and Values.  He apparently is aware of mistakes, ones serious enough to have some people considering leaving or having actually left.  What are those?  We can't say yes we have made serious mistakes and then when a list is provided, say none of those are the one we are speaking about.  That would fail on several fronts.  President Uchtdorf seems to be telling those struggling or who have left "I know some of you have had a hard time with some of the things you have discovered in Church History and with our leaders, and yes some of those things are real mistakes and not just you imagining things or drawing conclusions that are completely unfair"

 

Who I think has made mistakes in the end is irrelevant other then Pres. Uchtdorf and I both agree and acknowledge that serious mistakes have occurred and cause members to doubt their faith.  I would be more concerned with the mistakes he is acknowledging. 

But again, are these things for which the Church as an institution should be assuming blame?

 

Take the Mountain Meadows Massacre, for instance. I have never bought into the notion that the Church collectively is accountable for that horrendous episode. It was perpetrated by a number of frenzied and misguided individuals acting out of harmony with the doctrine and values of the Church and (as they tragically learned too late) inconsistently with the express will of Brigham Young.

 

While it's certainly true that the massacre was a mistake, one that might cause some people to waver in their faith, it will never be appropriate for the Church as a whole to assume blame for it.

 

Other things people have been quick to assume were errors but really are not. Plural marriage, for example. The early Church leaders instituted it in obedience to God's commandment.

 

So, expecting President Uchtdorf or someone else to make a laundry list strikes me as problematical. There are too many differing opinions on what should be included, who deserves the blame, etc. And it fosters a spirit of faultfinding.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

What was the position taken by Joseph Fielding Smith in his writings prior to his ascension to the Presidency?

I couldn't tell you off hand, but whatever it was, was it ever regarded as the official position of the Church?

[Stone holm]

I couldn't tell you off hand, but whatever it was, was it ever regarded as the official position of the Church?

Not by me, but we seem to be getting pretty loose with our definition of scripture here let alone official position of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not by me, but we seem to be getting pretty loose with our definition of scripture here let alone official position of the Church.

I don't follow you.

 

If you, yourself, don't assume a literal reading of the Genesis account, why do you expect others to?

Edited November 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

Be careful Bob, you have a tendancey when paraphrasing me to get it wrong.  Yo have done so here on several points.  I would prefer you quote my whole statement and in context.

- Uchtdorf is who admitted mistakes not Holland.

- I do not imply the entire Mormon Doctrine book as a mistake but rather the impact portions of it that are incorrect have pigeon holed membership into believing false concepts as "Mormon Doctrine"

- No where do I say that Elder Holland or Elder Uchtdorf fall short, you are imposing thoughts on me that I do not have.

 

You trading what good you have built up the past week for an effort to regain footing in this disagreement. please quote me accurately - do not paraphrase me as you seem to always mis-align what I say

I don't know anything about building up "good in the past week."  I merely defended you on the ark-steadying nonsense.  I see your ministry, to choose a word that may not be descriptive, as little different than FAIR's.  I am a fan of FAIR's; I don't have the same feeling about this thread but big deal.

 

If I misread your post to say Holland rather than Uchtdorf, you have my apologies.  I wouldn't condemn my entire post participation here because I confused Holland with Uchtdorf in your opening thread.  There was no malice behind the confusion.  Frankly I have some difficulty following your opening post. 

 

He got up and gave a talk at BYU that said Evolution was a heresy in spite of the First Presidency refusing to take that stance. ( there is something wrong with that picture.

 

 

I am a little surprised by this time you don't want to spell out specific errors in Mormon Doctrine.  I suppose one could say his views on evolution are problematic, but how are they "mistakes" or "errors"?   He could be right.  There just ain't no way that the Church is going to put something on its website saying that what Elder McConkie taught at BYU about evoluion was in error.  

 

Perhaps your argument is merely that Elder McConkie had no right to declare a belief in evolution as "heresy."  That's it?  I guess that is a reasonable objection, in that It really isn't heresy as far as the Church is concerned.  But perhaps it is heresy to teach evolution as a truth in a Chuch meeting house.  It may be equally so to teach anti-evolution in a church meetinghouse.   I just don't see this objection as anything more than a makeweight.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

This discussion is just weird to me. It seems as if some people are saying it's OK to acknowledge in a general way that mistakes have been made, but it's not OK to be specific. Am I missing something?

I think it's perfectly OK to be specific, but not to demand of the Lord's annointed an authoritative, infallible confirmation of one's suspicions or accusations, or to expect fallible leaders to do so without the Lord's instruction. The Church is here to heal people, no matter how they may have been affected by imperfect members and leaders, who are not going to go away.

[DBMormon]

But again, are these things for which the Church as an institution should be assuming blame?

 

Let's look at this another way.  When a Leader gets up in a Church meeting like a BYU address and states that Evolution is a heresy (in spite of first presidency statements that take no such position), and then the institutional Church publishes said talk and includes it on their BYU speeches site.  Does it not then take on the voice of authority?  Counter that with the official position which for most members may be a little harder to find.  When you take a step back and look at examples like this, it is easy to see why misconceptions of what is Doctrine persist in our Church membership to the extent that they do.  Members assume (perhaps wrongly) that if an apostle gives a talk, said talk is published throughout the Church, and no other talk is given to correct said talk, that said talk can be trusted as official.  How hard would it have been for the Church to make a public statement after that talk and correct Elder McConkie and let people know they are not bound to accept Elder McConkies's view on Evolution? He sure seems to put his view across as binding.  And when we publish these views which draw lines where the Lord hasn't and do not correct them publicly, is said institution at all responsible?  that is the debate.  Now if we were speaking of just one principle or circumstance, it would mean nothing, but this kind of drawing lines happened enough that many have a false perception of what Doctrine is and isn't. 

 

You can understand why this happens right?  And you can see why someone might feel that Elder McConkie's view on Evolution might cause one to struggle with the Church's truth claims when they "think" that their position on science contradicts a perceived stance of the Church on the same issue?

 

And I am guessing you can also see how the Church permitting it's leaders (Apostles and Prophets) to individually draw incorrect and unnecessary lines in the sand without any public correction can be seen by others as the Church being responsible for allowing the error to persist? 

 

This is where I focus much of my podcast.  I have done episodes on what it means to be the "True and Living Church"  We have explored "what is Doctrine" and whether "Diversity is the opposite of unity"?  I have tried to deconstruct the Mormonism I and others were taught and try to give them the flexibility they are unaware exists but which completely and fully does on dozens of issues.  The Mormonism taught in the 80's and 90's by "general membership"  reflects a lot of unnecessary lines in the sand that one should never feel bound to.  The sooner we acknowledge the specifics of these incorrect lines the sooner we give the flexibility inherently found in the Doctrine of the Church, and allow people who leave over such things to realize there may be no need to leave at all.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I fully recognize leaders are not infallible and I hold no grudge for innocent mistakes and errors that happen, but I struggle when we fail to correct those errors publicly so that the next generation doesn't pick up the same false grasp of "what is Doctrine".  On some level when we fail to correct a leader drawing an undoctrinal line in the sand, we hold some responsibility for it proliferation.

Edited November 11, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

Still kinda vague as to what you want and what errors abound.  

 

Elder McConkie may be right about evolution.  Who knows. 

[DBMormon]

Still kinda vague as to what you want and what errors abound.  

 

Elder McConkie may be right about evolution.  Who knows. 

He may be right, but that is not the point.  He had no right to declare a doctrinal position that the Lord had not revealed through the Church.  If the Church has an official position of A, then a leader (anyone other then prophet) on his own has no right to declare position B on such issue.  You do see the problem with that.

 

What if Elder Holland stood up and declared same sex marriage as ordained of God?

What if Elder Oaks stood and said that Baptism is no longer needed?

Or even if Elder Nelson stood and declared that Noah's flood was absolutely a local flood when the First Presidency is not comfortable going that far?

[Rivers]

Trying to figure out what all the specific mistakes are would be way to complicating. It is probably sufficient for people to understand that mistakes have and do happen.  The best thing to do is foster a culture in which people understand that not everything that comes out of a General Authoritity's mouth is doctrine.  The church has even come out and said that.  People also need to be able to seperate the core doctrines of the gospel from all the peripheral stuff. 

[Stone holm]

Trying to figure out what all the specific mistakes are would be way to complicating. It is probably sufficient for people to understand that mistakes have and do happen.  The best thing to do is foster a culture in which people understand that not everything that comes out of a General Authoritity's mouth is doctrine.  The church has even come out and said that.  People also need to be able to seperate the core doctrines of the gospel from all the peripheral stuff.

I agree. Gave you a bump on that.

[Rivers]

He may be right, but that is not the point.  He had no right to declare a doctrinal position that the Lord had not revealed through the Church.  If the Church has an official position of A, then a leader (anyone other then prophet) on his own has no right to declare position B on such issue.  You do see the problem with that.

Didn't Elder McConkie get reprimanded for his Seven Deadly Heresies talk?

[DBMormon]

here is my list of teachings that are incorrectly taught as doctrine by some leaders and are taken to mean something other then true Doctrine.

- evolution is a heresy

- Tithing is on Gross no if ands or buts

- make Diversity seem like a negative rather then a positive

- Keeping polyandry, seer stones, and treasure digging out of the mainstream conversation

- Painting Joseph Smith as near perfect and setting up an ideal portrayal of him that leads to some being let down when they dig into history

- Not having an open discussion about prophets and apostles being fallible and only sporadically encouraging people not to follow leaders blindly but rather follow the HG so we can be led in truth acknowledging leaders do not always speak the will of God (even in settings like General Conference).

 

These are a handful.  I could list more if given time to think these over.

 

Also a note to all - From my point of view these kinds of things are to be expected and are a part of a nuanced and complex life.  I am not speaking negatively of these mistakes as if they should never have occured but rather to our responsibility to correct them immediately to prevent misunderstanding from proliferating through the Church.

Edited November 11, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

He may be right, but that is not the point.  He had no right to declare a doctrinal position that the Lord had not revealed through the Church.  If the Church has an official position of A, then a leader (anyone other then prophet) on his own has no right to declare position B on such issue.  You do see the problem with that.

 

What if Elder Holland stood up and declared same sex marriage as ordained of God?

What if Elder Oaks stood and said that Baptism is no longer needed?

Or even if Elder Nelson stood and declared that Noah's flood was absolutely a local flood when the First Presidency is not comfortable going that far?

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

[DBMormon]

Didn't Elder McConkie get reprimanded for his Seven Deadly Heresies talk?

Does the average member know that? (I didn't, you even seem uncertain)  How would they know this?  Is the talk still viewable, downloadable off of ByuSpeeches website?  yes on the last one.  Which fact is furthered at a faster rate, that he was corrected or that evolution is a heresy?

[DBMormon]

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

 Does his admitttance fall short?  No.  Does it help correct specific false Doctrines that members hold?  No.   Does it give a struggling member flexibility when their parents look down on their son or daughter's views since the parents hold false views and see their kids disagreement with those false views is seen by the parents as apostasy and as going against the brethren? nope

[Rivers]

Does the average member know that? (I didn't, you even seem uncertain)  How would they know this?  Is the talk still viewable, downloadable off of ByuSpeeches website?  yes on the last one.  Which fact is furthered at a faster rate, that he was corrected or that evolution is a heresy?

It seems that most if not all of the top general authorities have a a young-earth creationist viewpoint.  That's probably why the church has no problem keeping it on the website.  We've even had Elder Nelson take a jab at evolution in General Conference not too long ago.

 

[Bob Crockett]

I'm sorry.  I'm beyond understanding your answer Bro. DBMormon   I merely reposted the question you posed in the opening post.  If the admittance didn't "fall short" then the discussion is over, in my view.  It seems inconsistent to say that the admittance did not fall short and then criticize what was not said.  

Edited November 11, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

I'm sorry.  I'm beyond understanding that.   I merely reposted the question you posed in the opening post.  If the admittance didn't "fall short" then the discussion is over, in my view.

Did what he said fall short, no.  Are we able to stop there and never specifically address fasle teaching and do we have a responsibility to do so.  That is still up for discussion.

 

Bob - did you answer this

 

What if Elder Holland stood up and declared same sex marriage as ordained of God?

What if Elder Oaks stood and said that Baptism is no longer needed?

Or even if Elder Nelson stood and declared that Noah's flood was absolutely a local flood when the First Presidency is not comfortable going that far?

 

Would any of the three examples above be wrong in your eyes?