Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[rockpond]

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.

 

I do also believe that President Packer will tell you "straight up his beliefs".  And some of his beliefs give me some apprehension.

 

But if I add up all your responses, it seems that you are saying:  the Brethren can and should speculate in their official addresses to the church, church members should recognize that what they say in their official capacity in gen con is not to be taken as scripture, the church does not need to clarify when mistakes are made as it is the responsibility of individual members to pray and learn through the Spirit if it is true, and we shouldn't be concerned with certain teaching trends we may see among individual apostles because once they become prophet, the mantel will take care of that.

 

Did I capture all that correctly?

 

If so, I'm in agreement with some of those points but not as comfortable as you are with others.

[DBMormon]

Bob Crockett, I am frustrated that each time I show your reasoning to be faulty, you simply back out of the conversation.  Now you stated your reasoning that the McConkie/Evolution idea should not matter is that he may be right in spite of the fact that the First Presidency has established a official policy of not taking a stance on the issue.  I gave you three obvious hypotheticals that showed your logic as wrong... what happens?  you refuse to answer.  Each thread once your argument fails and becomes obviously flawed, you either vanish from the thread or you make it personal (which has had consequences).  If you look at the last 10 threads you and I have disagreed on, 7 or 8 of them have ended this way.

 

Now  I know and suppose you do as well that we would not recognize an apostle speaking on an issue where the First Presidency has set official policy on the issue stating the position differently then said apostle and said apostle has not cleared his position with approval from the brethren as a whole. 

 

I also showed you the errors in Mormon Doctrine that you asked for.  So either you dispute those points as the book being right on them or do you concede the book has more problems then you first thought?  Now any chance you will acknowledge that your logic and reasoning on these two points is flawed?  Or will I have to wait till the next the thread to engage you in conversation?

Edited November 12, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

You've answered the questions I've posed to you to my satisfaction.  I don't necessarily agree with you but I've made whatever points I've wanted to make.  Anything else now would be repetition.  Please don't make it personal.  It isn't necessary.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[canard78]

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.

DB, you say these are "incorrectly taught as doctrine by some leaders."

Which leaders? Please provide sources.

[Stone holm]

I do also believe that President Packer will tell you "straight up his beliefs".  And some of his beliefs give me some apprehension.

 

But if I add up all your responses, it seems that you are saying:  the Brethren can and should speculate in their official addresses to the church, church members should recognize that what they say in their official capacity in gen con is not to be taken as scripture, the church does not need to clarify when mistakes are made as it is the responsibility of individual members to pray and learn through the Spirit if it is true, and we shouldn't be concerned with certain teaching trends we may see among individual apostles because once they become prophet, the mantel will take care of that.

 

Did I capture all that correctly?

 

If so, I'm in agreement with some of those points but not as comfortable as you are with others.

 

It would be nice if the Brethren would avoid speculating and firing off personal biases at Conference, but I don't think we live in a perfect world or that the Church is absolutely perfect.  If we demand and try to enforce perfection from the Brethren there will be several results:  1) those who are ultra conscientious will tend not to say anything at all unless they are absolutely sure -- which means that all the interesting speakers will be the ones who aren't very conscientious about getting things right, 2) we will tend to get a lot of what one of my sons describes as "poofery" -- which I describe as milk, and 3) members will develop an unwarranted reliance on the idea that everything that gets said at Conference is "spot on" -- "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" -- etc.  So all I am saying is that in this imperfect world with an imperfect Church, it is better to let the GAs say what they think, and expect the members to sift out the truth from the opinion and hope for the best with the assurance that the Lord will rein them in if they start to get so off the track that they are actually endangering anyone's eternal salvation or driving the Church of the cliff.

[rockpond]

It would be nice if the Brethren would avoid speculating and firing off personal biases at Conference, but I don't think we live in a perfect world or that the Church is absolutely perfect.  If we demand and try to enforce perfection from the Brethren there will be several results:  1) those who are ultra conscientious will tend not to say anything at all unless they are absolutely sure -- which means that all the interesting speakers will be the ones who aren't very conscientious about getting things right, 2) we will tend to get a lot of what one of my sons describes as "poofery" -- which I describe as milk, and 3) members will develop an unwarranted reliance on the idea that everything that gets said at Conference is "spot on" -- "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" -- etc.  So all I am saying is that in this imperfect world with an imperfect Church, it is better to let the GAs say what they think, and expect the members to sift out the truth from the opinion and hope for the best with the assurance that the Lord will rein them in if they start to get so off the track that they are actually endangering anyone's eternal salvation or driving the Church of the cliff.

 

I'm on board with that with a couple exceptions:

 

1)  I think that we'll need more messages like the ones I cited from Uchtdorf & Christofferson to help the members know that they do have the freedom to sift truth from opinion.

 

2)  It concerns me when some of those biases get perpetuated into stake & ward leadership training which will perpetuate those ideas for another generation.

[thesometimesaint]

I think the Church is perfect. Its mortal members not so much. The good thing is we don't have to be perfect in this life to help our fellow man.

[rockpond]

The good thing is we don't have to be perfect in this life to help our fellow man.

 

Amen.

[DBMormon]

DB, you say these are "incorrectly taught as doctrine by some leaders."

Which leaders? Please provide sources.

I said some leaders have taught these things and some members have understood the doctrines these ways.  

Diversity - http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=669

 

Polyandry and the like - the absence of these issues so no talk to point at

 

Tithing -  [link to temple content removed] this shares how various leaders have defined tithing as Gross, some net, and even some surplus and also states the official policy

 

Joseph Smith as near perfect - most manuals in the Church make him larger then life. (weird though in LDS funerals we are encouraged not to do that)

We stress leg surgery taking no alcohol and we leave a lot of events that shaped him as much or more.

 

Evolution - we have already beat the dead horse enough

 

Again - I have no problem with leaders erroring, only discussing if we should do more to fix it when it happens

[jbarm]

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.

Elder Oaks is a family friend who is one of the most genuinely kind and gentle persons I have ever met.  I take strong exception to your characterization of him, based on my personal experiences with the man.

 

jb

[Bob Crockett]

I said some leaders have taught these things and some members have understood the doctrines these ways.  

Diversity - http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=669

I take it this is a slam on Elder Oaks.  I see nothing wrong with arguing that the political correctness doctrine of diversity should not overshadow the Christian effort for unity.  I certainly don't see it as error.

 

Polyandry and the like - the absence of these issues so no talk to point at

I don't agree that the issues are "absent".  I particularly like the way FARMS reviewed Compton's book; there you have a Church-sponsored periodical addressing your concerns for all to read.

 

Tithing - [link to temple content removed]  this shares how various leaders have defined tithing as Gross, some net, and even some surplus and also states the official policy

Sorry, I can't even read a blatantly anti-Mormon site   Tithing is what it is; you can gripe all you want about net and gross; just pick which one you want and be silent about it if you are a leader.

J

oseph Smith as near perfect - most manuals in the Church make him larger then life. (weird though in LDS funerals we are encouraged not to do that)

We stress leg surgery taking no alcohol and we leave a lot of events that shaped him as much or more.

He is larger than life, I will grant you that.   He is "near perfect," I can grant you that.   I have never heard of not talking about Joseph Smith in LDS funerals, so you have me there.  As far as the leg surgey case, I'll just have to put my trust in Lucy Mack Smith.  Anything wrong with her account?

 

Evolution - we have already beat the dead horse enough

I think it ok to not believe in evolution. 

 

Again - I have no problem with leaders erroring, only discussing if we should do more to fix it when it happens

What is the solution, if you have one, for the Lord's Anointed "erroring"?

[Stone holm]

Elder Oaks is a family friend who is one of the most genuinely kind and gentle persons I have ever met.  I take strong exception to your characterization of him, based on my personal experiences with the man.

 

jb

 

My personal experiences with him are limited as I indicated -- that particular experience was quite offensive, but we all have off days.

[Stone holm]

I think the Church is perfect. Its mortal members not so much. The good thing is we don't have to be perfect in this life to help our fellow man.

 

Well I believe the Church is the most perfect Church on the Earth, but I do not believe it is perfect -- it is the best that can be expected given it consists of mortals even though it is headed by the Lord.

[Hamba Tuhan]

My personal experiences with him are limited as I indicated -- that particular experience was quite offensive, but we all have off days.

 

Hopefully you'll have another chance to interact with him when you're not having such an 'off day'.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

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.

There are plenty of other examples of massacres happening in life without having the temple involved or the action sanctioned by higher ups, I don't see that as a necessary setup that one must appeal to in order to explain the massacre.  Have you read Massacre at Mountain Meadows?  I think that offers the best, comprehensive explanation.  A very short summary of the book is available in the Ensign.

[Calm]

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?

There is a big difference between talking about doctrine that hasn't been revealed as if it has been and contradicting doctrine that has been revealed or current policy held.

[Stone holm]

I'm on board with that with a couple exceptions:

 

1)  I think that we'll need more messages like the ones I cited from Uchtdorf & Christofferson to help the members know that they do have the freedom to sift truth from opinion.

 

2)  It concerns me when some of those biases get perpetuated into stake & ward leadership training which will perpetuate those ideas for another generation.

Again, I don't think there is much that can be done about it unless you want to have all the talks sounding like milk toast . We still have ETB talks from when he was an Apostle and an Eisenhower Cabinet Member during the McCarthy Era echoing down the ages even though the Cold War has long since become irrelevant. Any organization which is as addicted to the written word derived from sermons as we are is going to have that. If the Church launches a crusade because of a perceived threat, or if a GA does so, it can be very difficult to stop. I sometimes think of the Church like an aircraft carrier which is an amazing thing which is highly organized, but if you have one going at full speed, do not expect to turn on a dime for a course correction or to retrieve a sailor overboard.

[DBMormon]

I take it this is a slam on Elder Oaks.  I see nothing wrong with arguing that the political correctness doctrine of diversity should not overshadow the Christian effort for unity.  I certainly don't see it as error.

 

I don't agree that the issues are "absent".  I particularly like the way FARMS reviewed Compton's book; there you have a Church-sponsored periodical addressing your concerns for all to read.

 

Sorry, I can't even read a blatantly anti-Mormon site   Tithing is what it is; you can gripe all you want about net and gross; just pick which one you want and be silent about it if you are a leader.

J

He is larger than life, I will grant you that.   He is "near perfect," I can grant you that.   I have never heard of not talking about Joseph Smith in LDS funerals, so you have me there.  As far as the leg surgey case, I'll just have to put my trust in Lucy Mack Smith.  Anything wrong with her account?

 

I think it ok to not believe in evolution. 

 

What is the solution, if you have one, for the Lord's Anointed "erroring"?

 

Bob, You obviously see everything in the worst light when it comes to me.  My first sentence (which you quote) said that either leaders have explicitly taught a teaching as Doctrine that wasn't or "some members have understood the doctrines these ways"  Elder Oaks thoughts on Diverstiy could easily be seen or interpreted as Diversity being unwelcomed and not a strength, not that he is automatically teaching it that way.

 

Go back 12 months and polyandry is absolutely invisible.  This is not debatable.  FAIRMormon is not the Church.  FARMS is not the Church

 

Joseph Smith was not near perfect, even he did not claim that

 

Again you are oblivious to the point.  Elder McConkie's believing Evolution was false is not the problem, it is that he imposed his opinion as official teachings

 

Your a lawyer right?  We should have a game where you and I argue our points before a jury and see who wins.  

[Bob Crockett]

My profession is not pertinent, is it?

Peace, brother. I hope you find it.

[rockpond]

Again, I don't think there is much that can be done about it unless you want to have all the talks sounding like milk toast . We still have ETB talks from when he was an Apostle and an Eisenhower Cabinet Member during the McCarthy Era echoing down the ages even though the Cold War has long since become irrelevant. Any organization which is as addicted to the written word derived from sermons as we are is going to have that. If the Church launches a crusade because of a perceived threat, or if a GA does so, it can be very difficult to stop. I sometimes think of the Church like an aircraft carrier which is an amazing thing which is highly organized, but if you have one going at full speed, do not expect to turn on a dime for a course correction or to retrieve a sailor overboard.

 

I think we've talked about what can be done... and it doesn't require all the talks being "milk"... I think that the Brethren can continue teaching (as Uchtdorf just did) that the leaders can make mistakes and that some things they say are opinion (Christofferson).  Throw in some emphasis on praying for the confirmation of the Spirit and we're good.

[Stone holm]

I think we've talked about what can be done... and it doesn't require all the talks being "milk"... I think that the Brethren can continue teaching (as Uchtdorf just did) that the leaders can make mistakes and that some things they say are opinion (Christofferson).  Throw in some emphasis on praying for the confirmation of the Spirit and we're good.

Well yes my wife and I are great fans of Pres Uchtdorf and truth be known, am a great fan of Elder Packer. I remember being in a Stake Priesthood Leadership meeting where Elder Packer was point blank asked about lifting the Priesthood ban shortly after it occurred. Now he could have blown a bunch of smoke, but instead he just said, "Well we had the São Paulo Brazil Temple Dedication coming up and they were desperately trying to figure out how to deal with the floodgate of Temple Recomends and they took the problem to The Lord and that was the solution." Straight answer no nonsense no covering smoke, no , as my son would say , poofery. I find that refreshing even if Elder Oaks may think dealing with Elder Packer is akin to stage managing a grizzly.

[rockpond]

Well yes my wife and I are great fans of Pres Uchtdorf and truth be known, am a great fan of Elder Packer. I remember being in a Stake Priesthood Leadership meeting where Elder Packer was point blank asked about lifting the Priesthood ban shortly after it occurred. Now he could have blown a bunch of smoke, but instead he just said, "Well we had the São Paulo Brazil Temple Dedication coming up and they were desperately trying to figure out how to deal with the floodgate of Temple Recomends and they took the problem to The Lord and that was the solution." Straight answer no nonsense no covering smoke, no , as my son would say , poofery. I find that refreshing even if Elder Oaks may think dealing with Elder Packer is akin to stage managing a grizzly.

 

Yeah, I think that President Packer has advanced the doctrine in great ways.  I also think he's had some missteps and, interestingly, the church chose to turn a couple of those into widely distributed pamphlets.

 

I'm curious what you think he meant by "trying to figure out how to deal with the floodgate of Temple Recommends"?  Was he saying that the black members in Brazil were asking to be admitted into the temple and they didn't know whether or not to allow it?  Or am I missing something?

[CV75]

Again - I have no problem with leaders erroring, only discussing if we should do more to fix it when it happens

If that’s all this is about, then doing more to fix leaders' errors on a general scale depends on what the Lord inspires His appointed "fixers" to do, and they do it in His way and on His timetable. Self-appointed enthusiasts and crusaders can only interject their own issues and methods into a dubious solution, creating a set of problems rooted in their own errors.

 

Somewhere in the middle are members who are inspired to help their brothers and sisters deal with the real issues at hand, whether that means doing more or less.

[Stone holm]

Yeah, I think that President Packer has advanced the doctrine in great ways.  I also think he's had some missteps and, interestingly, the church chose to turn a couple of those into widely distributed pamphlets.

 

I'm curious what you think he meant by "trying to figure out how to deal with the floodgate of Temple Recommends"?  Was he saying that the black members in Brazil were asking to be admitted into the temple and they didn't know whether or not to allow it?  Or am I missing something?

The problem for the Church was that in Brazil and elsewhere in South America the races had intermarried to a huge extent, they were having problems because they couldn't tell for sure whether a member could receive a Temple Recommend or the Priesthood. And of course the situation was just going to get worse as people started doing their genealogy and oh whoops! So they had no idea how to deal with it, but The Lord did and he cut through the gordians not for them. In other words what he said was look guys this wasn't some mystical quest to welcome the Africans into the Church, we just had this really big problem sorting people out and as we struggled with that problem we finally figured it out. He didn't blow any smoke just said okay we had a problem and the rule just didn't work anymore.

[rockpond]

If that’s all this is about, then doing more to fix leaders' errors on a general scale depends on what the Lord inspires His appointed "fixers" to do, and they do it in His way and on His timetable. Self-appointed enthusiasts and crusaders can only interject their own issues and methods into a dubious solution, creating a set of problems rooted in their own errors.

 

Somewhere in the middle are members who are inspired to help their brothers and sisters deal with the real issues at hand, whether that means doing more or less.

 

You may have already noted this but you were responding to one of those members, Bill Reel (aka DBMormon) who has put a ton of time & effort into helping our brothers & sisters deal with the real issues at hand.

 

I'm not sure who you think the "self-appointed enthusiasts and crusaders" are nor what "dubious solutions" you are demeaning.