Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[Rivers]

 

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

Yep. All three of them.  However, I would love it if Elder Holland said that same-sex marriage was ordained of God.

[DBMormon]

Yep. All three of them.  However, I would love it if Elder Holland said that same-sex marriage was ordained of God.

Is your name Bob Rivers?  I am curious If Bob would take the same answer and thereby disqualify his previous support for Elder McConkie having done the same thing

[Tacenda]

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.

I thought it stemmed from the temple rites about blood atonement that have since been changed, or else I just don't see how the SP or leaders in various callings could have gone through with such a horrific crime, unless they thought it was sanctioned. Edited November 11, 2013 by Tacenda

[DBMormon]

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.  

but you are again playing semantics.  I am not asking if his specific talk falls short on it's own merits but rather is there more work to be done in pressing this discussion from leaders even further into specifics.

[CV75]

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.

In a nutshell, you are trying to control the behavior and outcomes of certain personalities for whom the Spirit is the best companion, but that may not always behave in ways that the Spirit will continue to strive with them.

 

On a personality level, you mentioned the black-and-white view as being detrimental to finding flexible ways to resolve struggles with apparent conflicts in what leaders say. The Spirit will help people do this, or at least to see the real reason for staying with the Church and put this stuff on the back burner, if they are willing to receive it.

 

On an intellectual level, comparing apparent conflicts and offering tools and perspectives can be done without incorrectly assigning blame that may not be there, or which the Lord forgives or overlooks. The Spirit will help people see and treat things as the Lord does.

 

You can’t know the true source of people’s spiritual struggles, and cannot control them or their resolution. You can’t control what the Spirit teaches people about the doctrine from a talk from a fallible servant of God. You can’t filter out every nuance of error you see or think you see in every talk and for every hearer. The Spirit will teach man to pray, and that he need not leave over a personal struggle of any kind; in this case, over a point of doctrine. You can’t control the priorities of the Lord or His anointed to match your own worldview. You can’t control how the equal quorums of the First Presidency or the Twelve operate and function, only pray for and sustain them. They, as the “institution” are not the thought police or a referee among themselves or for the members (it is enough they review and edit the General Conference talks); they are watchmen to warn about what the enemy is doing. It is naïve to think that one can opine on a doctrinal error, call it out, and think that will end all proliferation of every opinion or statement you don’t agree with. Errors and disagreements with doctrine will continue in some form or fashion among the fallible and among the rebellious, and the watchmen are in a better position to warn and prevent the latter, who need rescue most.

[Bob Crockett]

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

 

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

If I learned the resurrection was a fraud I wouldn't be a Christian.   I don't believe in hypotheticals which are contrary to norms in religious discussions.  Sorry.

[DBMormon]

If I learned the resurrection was a fraud I wouldn't be a Christian.   I don't believe in hypotheticals which are contrary to norms in religious discussions.  Sorry.

 

Bob, your avoiding the question, there appears to be no way to hold a stance and also disagree with it.  Please answer the question?

Bob - did you answer this

 

Quote

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?

[DBMormon]

Had a chance to look through Mormon Doctrine tonight.  Problems I have only flipping through a few pages

 

Quetzalcoatl - not Doctrine

 

Tithing - he defines it as everything you get (gross) - Not Doctrine

 

Evolution wrong - Not Doctrine

 

Death before the fall - his source is Doctrines of Salvation by his Father in Law - Not sure this is absolute Doctrine

 

Devolution - His view is not Doctrine

 

Doctrine - He admits all Churches have "much truth" and then says True Doctrines are always found in the true Church - these two quotes allow for no difference between the two (true church and non true churches.

 

Doubt - His view here is black and white and completely innacurate

 

Mel. Priesthood - when this priesthood was given is under investigation by those involved with Church History.  New information is surfacing that may imply Mel. PH was given after the organization of the Church - this may turn out to be non doctrinal - forthcoming Joseph Smith Papers projects

 

Peep Stones - all evil is to dismiss the tool Joseph used - False Doctrine

 

Playing cards - again opinion and not Doctrine - My family playing Rummy as a family is not evil

 

Plural Marriage - says it stopped in 1890 when we know it continued until the second maifesto

 

Word of Wisdom -  He lists Soda Drinks which the Church as official policy has chosen not to go that far - there fore he extends himself furthter then the Doctrine

 

Anyway - It's a big book and this was just ten minutes of looking

[CV75]

Had a chance to look through Mormon Doctrine tonight.  Problems I have only flipping through a few pages

 

Quetzalcoatl - not Doctrine

 

Tithing - he defines it as everything you get (gross) - Not Doctrine

 

Evolution wrong - Not Doctrine

 

Death before the fall - his source is Doctrines of Salvation by his Father in Law - Not sure this is absolute Doctrine

 

Devolution - His view is not Doctrine

 

Doctrine - He admits all Churches have "much truth" and then says True Doctrines are always found in the true Church - these two quotes allow for no difference between the two (true church and non true churches.

 

Doubt - His view here is black and white and completely innacurate

 

Mel. Priesthood - when this priesthood was given is under investigation by those involved with Church History.  New information is surfacing that may imply Mel. PH was given after the organization of the Church - this may turn out to be non doctrinal - forthcoming Joseph Smith Papers projects

 

Peep Stones - all evil is to dismiss the tool Joseph used - False Doctrine

 

Playing cards - again opinion and not Doctrine - My family playing Rummy as a family is not evil

 

Plural Marriage - says it stopped in 1890 when we know it continued until the second maifesto

 

Word of Wisdom -  He lists Soda Drinks which the Church as official policy has chosen not to go that far - there fore he extends himself furthter then the Doctrine

 

Anyway - It's a big book and this was just ten minutes of looking

You seem to have a lot of problems, and can identify them easily. You seem to be doing what you can to educate people about them as a means to resolve your and others’ issues in your own way. I don’t see how the Church can make it any easier for you, and I don’t think you need the Church to do this for or with you at all.

[Bob Crockett]

What he said.

[DBMormon]

You seem to have a lot of problems, and can identify them easily. You seem to be doing what you can to educate people about them as a means to resolve your and others’ issues in your own way. I don’t see how the Church can make it any easier for you, and I don’t think you need the Church to do this for or with you at all.

I'll assume that's a compliment

[Stone holm]

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.

These do not have the ring of doctrine, but rather the speculation of men. Some GAs who had their roots in early Twentieth Century culture and during the period that the Cold War almost went hot had a tendency to go off the rails over things like evolution and government programs. We are all entitled to do that from time to time, and it would generate considerable confusion if the First Presidency spent a large amount of its time trying to correct derailments. Actually, I think I would prefer to hear or read the GAs go off the rails more often than constantly being served up milk, I believe I am developing lactose intolerance.

[rockpond]

These do not have the ring of doctrine, but rather the speculation of men. Some GAs who had their roots in early Twentieth Century culture and during the period that the Cold War almost went hot had a tendency to go off the rails over things like evolution and government programs. We are all entitled to do that from time to time, and it would generate considerable confusion if the First Presidency spent a large amount of its time trying to correct derailments. Actually, I think I would prefer to hear or read the GAs go off the rails more often than constantly being served up milk, I believe I am developing lactose intolerance.

So the choice before us is either "milk" or "off the rails speculation"?

[Stone holm]

So the choice before us is either "milk" or "off the rails speculation"?

If we try to rein in the GAs in order to prevent some from going off the rails, then we are putting a damper on their search for greater light and understanding from The Lord. We have implemented the Priesthood correlation to try and curb derailments. What has that produced? Fewer derailments, but also a flood of milk. The Prophet Joseph said, "Deep waters were what he was wont to swim in." So yes, if we want to see a little more meat from GAs, then we need to give them enough room to periodically go off the rails. I am quite willing to suffer through stuff from the likes of Joseph Fielding Smith and BRM, if it increases the likelihood of a GA providing the insights as we had from Joseph Smith, Jr. , Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow.

[rockpond]

If we try to rein in the GAs in order to prevent some from going off the rails, then we are putting a damper on their search for greater light and understanding from The Lord. We have implemented the Priesthood correlation to try and curb derailments. What has that produced? Fewer derailments, but also a flood of milk. The Prophet Joseph said, "Deep waters were what he was wont to swim in." So yes, if we want to see a little more meat from GAs, then we need to give them enough room to periodically go off the rails. I am quite willing to suffer through stuff from the likes of Joseph Fielding Smith and BRM, if it increases the likelihood of a GA providing the insights as we had from Joseph Smith, Jr. , Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow.

I agree with that. I had thought that might be your point... it didn't seem clear in your previous post but you stated it very nicely here.

However, if we're gonna go down that path (or continue down that path) I think we need to be more clear that what is spoken by the GA's is not to be taken as scripture. I think that Uchtdorf and Christofferson have made some recent attempts to clarify that but my perception is that the general membership considers General Conference to be unquestionably scriptural.

[Stone holm]

I agree with that. I had thought that might be your point... it didn't seem clear in your previous post but you stated it very nicely here.

However, if we're gonna go down that path (or continue down that path) I think we need to be more clear that what is spoken by the GA's is not to be taken as scripture. I think that Uchtdorf and Christofferson have made some recent attempts to clarify that but my perception is that the general membership considers General Conference to be unquestionably scriptural.

Not much can be done about that, and really what major harm is done if we have a few members believing that Adam and Eve were saddling up dinosaurs or that democratic European socialism is the same as Stalinist Marxism? So long as nobody is running around excommunicating people for not believing such stuff, let's give the members some credit for being able to not only pray but occasionally use the brains God gave them. The Church is going to have its ups and downs, but Pres Uchtdorf and those of his mindset in the very long haul represent where the Church is headed.

[rockpond]

Not much can be done about that, and really what major harm is done if we have a few members believing that Adam and Eve were saddling up dinosaurs or that democratic European socialism is the same as Stalinist Marxism? So long as nobody is running around excommunicating people for not believing such stuff, let's give the members some credit for being able to not only pray but occasionally use the brains God gave them. The Church is going to have its ups and downs, but Pres Uchtdorf and those of his mindset in the very long haul represent where the Church is headed.

Not much can be done? Actually, I think that hearing messages like Uchtdorf's "Come Join with Us" and Christofferson's "Doctrine of Christ" in each gen con will help a great deal.

If the two examples you mentioned above were the worst cases, I wouldn't lose much sleep. And if Pres Uchtdorf and those of his mindset represent the future of the church, I'd say we're in good shape.

But far worse things have been taught over the gen con pulpit. Elder Oaks has gained quite a voice lately with his "religious freedom" mantra. And Pres Packer is next in line to be president.

[Stone holm]

Not much can be done? Actually, I think that hearing messages like Uchtdorf's "Come Join with Us" and Christofferson's "Doctrine of Christ" in each gen con will help a great deal.

If the two examples you mentioned above were the worst cases, I wouldn't lose much sleep. And if Pres Uchtdorf and those of his mindset represent the future of the church, I'd say we're in good shape.

But far worse things have been taught over the gen con pulpit. Elder Oaks has gained quite a voice lately with his "religious freedom" mantra. And Pres Packer is next in line to be president.

I have no concern about Pres Packer have watched him personally in leadership meetings. He is a good man of God and he will tell you straight up his beliefs and why certain things are happening. He is one in whom there is no guile. I wish I was as confident about Elder Oaks. I have only observed him once in person and he is the only GA that I ever came away from with the deep feeling that he is not a person to be trusted. However, there was also deep distrust as to what might happen when ETB became Prophet, those fears, however, vanished when the mantle of the Prophet actually fell upon him. So I fully expect that as Elder Oaks gains greater and greater seniority we will see a change in him as well.

[Tacenda]

I have no concern about Pres Packer have watched him personally in leadership meetings. He is a good man of God and he will tell you straight up his beliefs and why certain things are happening. He is one in whom there is no guile. I wish I was as confident about Elder Oaks. I have only observed him once in person and he is the only GA that I ever came away from with the deep feeling that he is not a person to be trusted. However, there was also deep distrust as to what might happen when ETB became Prophet, those fears, however, vanished when the mantle of the Prophet actually fell upon him. So I fully expect that as Elder Oaks gains greater and greater seniority we will see a change in him as well.

Is it true that he has not ever been a Stake President, Bishop or didn't serve a missionary when a young man? Or is this hogwash?

[DBMormon]

I would be real careful saying that after meeting a person one time that you get the feel person X is such and such.  I know plenty of people who after meeting me one time thought I was great, kind, and dependable.

[Okrahomer]

Is it true that he has not ever been a Stake President, Bishop or didn't serve a missionary when a young man? Or is this hogwash?

 

I'm sure you do not mean it to "sound" this way, but there is something oddly gossipy about your post here.  I'm a bit surprised you didn't also include that other "thing" about his having once been married to someone other than his current spouse.  Since much of Elder Oaks' biography is easily accessible online, I'm wondering first, why you don't just search this information out yourself?  Secondly, I wonder what role you feel his having served (or not) as a missionary/Bishop/Stake President plays in qualifying (or disqualifying) him for the apostleship?  Does it make him less trustworthy?

 

Having been fairly well acquainted with some of his children during university days, and having met him briefly a couple of times in those same days, my deepest sense is that he is a very good and honest man.

[Stone holm]

I would be real careful saying that after meeting a person one time that you get the feel person X is such and such.  I know plenty of people who after meeting me one time thought I was great, kind, and dependable.

True. Except have never had that feeling before with seeing a GA personally. My wife scolds me that I have become too influenced by the fact that on that occasion with his constant hitching up of his pants and the slur aimed at Vermonters I tended to form a visceral image of him as a Southern used car salesman. Am trying to overcome that first impression, however, as a primary child said lately in Fast and Testimony , you don't get a second chance at first impressions.

[Tacenda]

I'm sure you do not mean it to "sound" this way, but there is something oddly gossipy about your post here. I'm a bit surprised you didn't also include that other "thing" about his having once been married to someone other than his current spouse. Since much of Elder Oaks' biography is easily accessible online, I'm wondering first, why you don't just search this information out yourself? Secondly, I wonder what role you feel his having served (or not) as a missionary/Bishop/Stake President plays in qualifying (or disqualifying) him for the apostleship? Does it make him less trustworthy?

Having been fairly well acquainted with some of his children during university days, and having met him briefly a couple of times in those same days, my deepest sense is that he is a very good and honest man.

Terrible of me. Was just barely researching him because the minute I posted I thought of the part of not researching myself. What was that video again on not taking the right road by Holland? Learning some great things about Oaks. One is the quote of his, about hard work. Work first, play later. His kids say he does....Work first, play never......

So yes, I was wrong for being gossipy, and learned a lesson and learned more about the man. I do remember that he visited my stake and remember one thing about his talk, he mentioned his love of fishing, but that he needed to put it aside and work first. And even mentioned his calling of speaking to stakes like ours, and how much easier it would be to fish, then turned it into a lesson to learn from.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[Okrahomer]

Terrible of me. Was just barely researching him because the minute I posted I thought of the part of not researching myself. What was that video again on not taking the right road by Holland? Learning some great things about Oaks. One is the quote of his, about hard work. Work first, play later. His kids say he does....Work first, play never......

So yes, I was wrong for being gossipy, and learned a lesson and learned more about the man. I do remember that he visited my stake and remember one thing about his talk, he mentioned his love of fishing, but that he needed to put it aside and work first. And even mentioned his calling of speaking to stakes like ours, and how much easier it would be to fish, then turned it into a lesson to learn from.

 

My recollection is that he has a very dry sense of humor--my favorite kind, as long as I'm with it enough to actually "get" it.

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

Elder McConkie may be right about evolution.  Who knows. 

 

It is by necessity kinda vague. We really don't do laundry lists of what some member of the Church, high or low, says that is right or wrong.

See Approaching Mormon Doctrine. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

To give a good example we do have doctrine that Pi is exactly equal to three. It is in the Bible, and no we have no revelation from God that it isn't.

 

He was wrong about evolution.

 

I know, but I'm not going to make this a discussion about evolution.