Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Bravo, DB,

A good list, but there are other lists along the same lines.

My question is: Do you realize that the volume is the well-intentioned effort of a canon lawyer?

Is there any real reason to speak ill of the dead in this case?  After all, the book is no longer in print.

Wouldn't it be better to simply allow this subject to die quietly?

Bob

[rockpond]

Bravo, DB,

A good list, but there are other lists along the same lines.

My question is: Do you realize that the volume is the well-intentioned effort of a canon lawyer?

Is there any real reason to speak ill of the dead in this case? After all, the book is no longer in print.

Wouldn't it be better to simply allow this subject to die quietly?

Bob

I don't think the Bill is trying to speak ill of the dead or disparage a book that has been removed from print.

The point, I believe, is to illustrate that maybe its time we stop equating the "well-intentioned efforts" of the Brethren with revealed truth. If they can speak (in their official capacity) and publish teachings that are just well-intentioned, can we stop considering them to be binding doctrines for the membership of the church?

[Stone holm]

I don't think the Bill is trying to speak ill of the dead or disparage a book that has been removed from print. The point, I believe, is to illustrate that maybe its time we stop equating the "well-intentioned efforts" of the Brethren with revealed truth. If they can speak (in their official capacity) and publish teachings that are just well-intentioned, can we stop considering them to be binding doctrines for the membership of the church?

 

Its a tension in Mormonism that we just have to put up with.  On the one hand, our distinguishing feature is that we have living prophets, on the other hand, one of our distinguishing problems is that .... well we have plenty of living and dead prophets.  As the wit once said, "Better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt," -- that doesn't work so well when you have upwards of 15 or more people sustained as living prophets at any one time and busily recording and printing their speeches.  Best you can do is put a partial gag on them that only allows them to speak in milkish terms.

[DBMormon]

Bravo, DB,

A good list, but there are other lists along the same lines.

My question is: Do you realize that the volume is the well-intentioned effort of a canon lawyer?

Is there any real reason to speak ill of the dead in this case?  After all, the book is no longer in print.

Wouldn't it be better to simply allow this subject to die quietly?

Bob

 

The issue for me, the heart of the matter, is that members lose their faith everyday over what they perceive as contradictions between Doctrine and their truth when it is unnecessary.  Let me illustrate. 

 

I assumed that Evolution being false was a Doctrine of the Church.  I took "Mormon Doctrine" as Mormon doctrine.  I thought an apostle was led by Christ in all that he taught from the pulpit and anything he wrote that could be purchased from the Church owned bookstore.  That in essence Anything spoken by an apostle was "truth".  Yes, this was a bad assumption, but it is one that our local wards and stakes teach all the time.

 

When I personally came to see Evolution as my "truth" I felt like ... uh oh.  The Church's stance on this doesn't add up.  I had about 2 dozen of these kinds of issues hit me all at once (church hides info, seer stones, Book of Abraham, ect...) Each of these have a perceived context and an actual context.  The less aware we are of multiple views the generally bigger divide between our context and the actual one (none of us likely ever arrive at a completely factual context understanding of these issues - believer and non-believer alike).

 

With all of these issues mounting up, I almost went inactive and came close to losing my faith completely.  People are doing this everyday.  If I can help them see that their perceived context may not be realistic by throwing the false opinions of leaders or anyone else OR eliminate unnecessary lines drawn, that the Church has not officially drawn as an institution that some leaders sometimes do.  I will do it.  If that means I am speaking ill of the Lord's annointed, then people here are free to feel that way.  Is it better to not say anything and let people lose their faith or is it better to be frank and deal with these issues head on and help people deconstruct their faulty assumptions and rebuild ones that will allow an intelligent informed faith?  to each their own, but please be clear on my current position.

Edited November 13, 2013 by DBMormon

[thesometimesaint]

While I've never been inactive, or lost my faith. I agree.

[DBMormon]

Its a tension in Mormonism that we just have to put up with.  On the one hand, our distinguishing feature is that we have living prophets, on the other hand, one of our distinguishing problems is that .... well we have plenty of living and dead prophets.  As the wit once said, "Better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt," -- that doesn't work so well when you have upwards of 15 or more people sustained as living prophets at any one time and busily recording and printing their speeches.  Best you can do is put a partial gag on them that only allows them to speak in milkish terms.

 

I agree, but I think there is a lot we can say that is insightful meat, that doesn't cross that line if we all take a deeper look at the things we are going to speak on and try to get down to what is the doctrine and what flexibility does that give, that I don't want to infringe on.  Listen to my podcast on Sacrament symbolism, my podcast on true and living Church, my episode on tithing, and the one on seer stones and treasure digging.  I personally feel their is meat there.  I also don't believe I violated establishing doctrine out of bounds of the Doctrine of the Church.  I am a nobody and certainly not an apostle.  But with study and pondering, each of us are capable of discovering gospel meat that does not violate doctrine.

[CV75]

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.

I was pointing out principles, not naming anyone, as part of discussing if we should do more to fix leaders' errors when they happen. The council system is a great means to address individual and collective problems and issues.

[Stone holm]

I agree, but I think there is a lot we can say that is insightful meat, that doesn't cross that line if we all take a deeper look at the things we are going to speak on and try to get down to what is the doctrine and what flexibility does that give, that I don't want to infringe on.  Listen to my podcast on Sacrament symbolism, my podcast on true and living Church, my episode on tithing, and the one on seer stones and treasure digging.  I personally feel their is meat there.  I also don't believe I violated establishing doctrine out of bounds of the Doctrine of the Church.  I am a nobody and certainly not an apostle.  But with study and pondering, each of us are capable of discovering gospel meat that does not violate doctrine.

Not sure where you are going with this thought, if you are saying there is a lot of meat in LDS doctrine that you can find if you know where to look, I absolutely agree. If you are saying that you can have GAs providing a reasonable amount of meat without also allowing some the latitude to go off the rails from time to time, or that you can have an aggressive Priesthood Correlation committee without milkifying the Gospel, then I would tend not to agree.

[rockpond]

I was pointing out principles, not naming anyone, as part of discussing if we should do more to fix leaders' errors when they happen. The council system is a great means to address individual and collective problems and issues.

 

Yeah, it's working really well with respect to the issues described on this thread.

[rockpond]

Its a tension in Mormonism that we just have to put up with.  On the one hand, our distinguishing feature is that we have living prophets, on the other hand, one of our distinguishing problems is that .... well we have plenty of living and dead prophets.  As the wit once said, "Better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt," -- that doesn't work so well when you have upwards of 15 or more people sustained as living prophets at any one time and busily recording and printing their speeches.  Best you can do is put a partial gag on them that only allows them to speak in milkish terms.

 

Why do we just have to put up with it?  Why can't we, as I described in my previous posts, just work toward changing the culture and having a better perspective on what is taught by The 15?

[CV75]

Yeah, it's working really well with respect to the issues described on this thread.

The council system is alive and well, addressing the real issues of the day, which in turn allows the Spirit to work with the receptive soul to resolve any issues of perspective. Of course there are some who feel it is not for them.

 

Another thing that works well is (as President Hinckley taught): having a friend, a responsibility and nurturing with “the good word of God.” Consider how these three elements of retaining the feeble-kneed follow a progression of participation on the recipient’s part. First, he only needs to be receptive to the extension of friendship by a proactive fellow citizen of the saints. Then someone has to give him a calling, which he needs to accept and act in to serve others. Nurturing with the good word is more a personal effort than is doing the thinking for them. The last one especially is pertinent to preventing a faith crisis based on the types of things listed in this thread, because the Spirit is helping the individual all along the way.

 

Interestingly enough, President Hinckley illustrated this approach by focusing on one of his personal failures. While the talk was about assisting and retaining new converts, it well applies to anyone struggling with the shortcomings of the members and the leaders they will inevitably come across, which is part and parcel of the earthly culture of the Church (the “heavenly” being Zion).

 

See talk: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/04/converts-and-young-men?lang=eng

[rockpond]

The council system is alive and well, addressing the real issues of the day, which in turn allows the Spirit to work with the receptive soul to resolve any issues of perspective. Of course there are some who feel it is not for them.

 

Another thing that works well is (as President Hinckley taught): having a friend, a responsibility and nurturing with “the good word of God.” Consider how these three elements of retaining the feeble-kneed follow a progression of participation on the recipient’s part. First, he only needs to be receptive to the extension of friendship by a proactive fellow citizen of the saints. Then someone has to give him a calling, which he needs to accept and act in to serve others. Nurturing with the good word is more a personal effort than is doing the thinking for them. The last one especially is pertinent to preventing a faith crisis based on the types of things listed in this thread, because the Spirit is helping the individual all along the way.

 

Interestingly enough, President Hinckley illustrated this approach by focusing on one of his personal failures. While the talk was about assisting and retaining new converts, it well applies to anyone struggling with the shortcomings of the members and the leaders they will inevitably come across, which is part and parcel of the earthly culture of the Church (the “heavenly” being Zion).

 

See talk: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/04/converts-and-young-men?lang=eng

 

Yes, those things work well.  We use them in our ward.  But they certainly don't need to be ALL that we do with respect to the issue raised by the OP.

[Bob Crockett]

I agree, but I think there is a lot we can say that is insightful meat, that doesn't cross that line if we all take a deeper look at the things we are going to speak on and try to get down to what is the doctrine and what flexibility does that give, that I don't want to infringe on.  Listen to my podcast on Sacrament symbolism, my podcast on true and living Church, my episode on tithing, and the one on seer stones and treasure digging.  I personally feel their is meat there.  I also don't believe I violated establishing doctrine out of bounds of the Doctrine of the Church.  I am a nobody and certainly not an apostle.  But with study and pondering, each of us are capable of discovering gospel meat that does not violate doctrine.

I think your OP raises questions that you haven't answered. And sometimes the answer hurts the church rather than helps it. But, at least, you approach the issue in good faith, you're honest in your approach and you use your real name and face.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

Yes, those things work well.  We use them in our ward.  But they certainly don't need to be ALL that we do with respect to the issue raised by the OP.

What do you see as the issue raised in the OP? I was adressing the discussion about if we should do "more" to fix leaders' erroring. We already have quorums and councils of various types (including disciplinary), President Hinckley's approach, and other ways that constitute how the Lord inspires His appointed "fixers of leaders' errors" that are consistent with these first two. These are rightfully "imposed" upon the Church.

 

Whether members should individually do more or less than this to fix leaders' erroring is really up to them, and arguments and pressure from other members to do more to correct our leaders isn't really the Lord's way.

[rockpond]

What do you see as the issue raised in the OP? I was adressing the discussion about if we should do "more" to fix leaders' erroring. We already have quorums and councils of various types (including disciplinary), President Hinckley's approach, and other ways that constitute how the Lord inspires His appointed "fixers of leaders' errors" that are consistent with these first two. These are rightfully "imposed" upon the Church.

 

Whether members should individually do more or less than this to fix leaders' erroring is really up to them, and arguments and pressure from other members to do more to correct our leaders isn't really the Lord's way.

 

If you take a look at the back and forth between Stone Holm and I, you'll see that I don't think it is as much an issue of needing to "fix" past errors as needing to adjust our culture regarding what we understand the teachings of The 15 to be.

[Stone holm]

Why do we just have to put up with it?  Why can't we, as I described in my previous posts, just work toward changing the culture and having a better perspective on what is taught by The 15?

 

How would you do that?  That is what the Priesthood Correlation was aimed at doing.  And what did that accomplish?  Lesson manuals which are a cure for insomnia.

[rockpond]

How would you do that?  That is what the Priesthood Correlation was aimed at doing.  And what did that accomplish?  Lesson manuals which are a cure for insomnia.

 

My understanding of Correlation was that it was about making teachings consistent across all geographies and throughout all curriculum.  I could be wrong on that -- haven't studied that topic much.

 

What I'm suggesting is just that we continue teaching principles that we've seen in recent conferences:  our doctrine is that of Christ and his atonement all else is an appendage (Christofferson), leaders make mistakes (Uchtdorf), questioning/diversity of thought is okay (Uchtdorf), and doubt is welcome (Holland).  And we emphasize the importance of seeking one's own confirmation of the Spirit on all that is taught.

 

As noted by my citations, I think we're seeing the trend already.  I'm just hoping that it will continue because I think those messages are helpful.

[Ahab]

 

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

 

You can be as specific as you like, but just realize that while you are being specific you may also be mistaken, just as someone else may also be mistaken while being specific in what they are talking about.

 

The key point I try to keep in my mind is this:  God is the one we need to learn from. 

 

Others may be mistaken, even while having the best of intentions, but God is never going to be wrong.

[CV75]

If you take a look at the back and forth between Stone Holm and I, you'll see that I don't think it is as much an issue of needing to "fix" past errors as needing to adjust our culture regarding what we understand the teachings of The 15 to be.

I can't join in and weigh in on  a conversation I haven't followed, only the one you struck up with me.

 

That said, I do see elements in my comments that pertain to "needing to adjust our culture" as much as "doing more to fix leaders' erroring (past, present and future)" and a call to be "specific on what mistakes have been made," which is my take from the OP.

 

My goodness, I was a non-member teenager reading Church books by Church leaders (waiting to get baptized as an adult), and I was able to handle what I didn't see fitting together with my understanding of doctrine, their understanding of doctrine, apparent differences between everyone, opinions about either, what I thought they were supposed to be doing, what I thought the scriptures were saying--and then once baptized, what various and sundry members and local leaders were doing and saying.

 

If it's a function of personality, the Spirit can help. if it's a function of spirituality, the Spirit can help. If it's a reliance on the arm of flesh, the Spirit can help. If it's a function of maturity or fallibility, join the club and the Spirit can help. I think I just wrote an Elder Nelson talk!

 

To be sure, a culture that gets adjusted from the outside-in is doomed to failure. Those who follow the spirit and the Spirit of what our leaders are saying and doing will build the Zion culture. But that isn't imposed upon them; it happens through personal discovery, one by one. Helping others experience and understand the Spirit in the Lord's way is better than leading by their own light.

[rockpond]

I can't join in and weigh in on  a conversation I haven't followed, only the one you struck up with me.

 

That said, I do see elements in my comments that pertain to "needing to adjust our culture" as much as "doing more to fix leaders' erroring (past, present and future)" and a call to be "specific on what mistakes have been made," which is my take from the OP.

 

My goodness, I was a non-member teenager reading Church books by Church leaders (waiting to get baptized as an adult), and I was able to handle what I didn't see fitting together with my understanding of doctrine, their understanding of doctrine, apparent differences between everyone, opinions about either, what I thought they were supposed to be doing, what I thought the scriptures were saying--and then once baptized, what various and sundry members and local leaders were doing and saying.

 

If it's a function of personality, the Spirit can help. if it's a function of spirituality, the Spirit can help. If it's a reliance on the arm of flesh, the Spirit can help. If it's a function of maturity or fallibility, join the club and the Spirit can help. I think I just wrote an Elder Nelson talk!

 

To be sure, a culture that gets adjusted from the outside-in is doomed to failure. Those who follow the spirit and the Spirit of what our leaders are saying and doing will build the Zion culture. But that isn't imposed upon them; it happens through personal discovery, one by one. Helping others experience and understand the Spirit in the Lord's way is better than leading by their own light.

 

I haven't suggested that we adjust the culture from the outside in... only from the inside-in.

 

Not everyone is able to make interpretations like you apparently did when you were a teenager.  You were able to decide what fits and what doesn't fit and adjust accordingly.  Let's allow others the same freedom because, in my experience, not everyone who comes across conflicts and tough issues feels that they can.  So they leave.  Which we agree is not the optimum outcome, right?

[Stone holm]

My understanding of Correlation was that it was about making teachings consistent across all geographies and throughout all curriculum.  I could be wrong on that -- haven't studied that topic much.

 

What I'm suggesting is just that we continue teaching principles that we've seen in recent conferences:  our doctrine is that of Christ and his atonement all else is an appendage (Christofferson), leaders make mistakes (Uchtdorf), questioning/diversity of thought is okay (Uchtdorf), and doubt is welcome (Holland).  And we emphasize the importance of seeking one's own confirmation of the Spirit on all that is taught.

 

As noted by my citations, I think we're seeing the trend already.  I'm just hoping that it will continue because I think those messages are helpful.

 

I might not be correct, but I think it had something also to do with trying not only to centralize authority over some of the organizations that used to have a fair amount more autonomy like Primary and especially Relief Society, but that it also had a wee bit to do with trying to get ETB, BRM, and Joseph Fielding Smith (before he was President) somewhat under control.  Although I did get a chuckle from the complaint of Paul H Dunn about Correlation telling him he couldn't say something -- of all the people that needed to have been reined in, it was probably him...but they probably weren't paying any attention to the veracity of the stories he was telling.

[CV75]

I haven't suggested that we adjust the culture from the outside in... only from the inside-in.

 

Not everyone is able to make interpretations like you apparently did when you were a teenager.  You were able to decide what fits and what doesn't fit and adjust accordingly.  Let's allow others the same freedom because, in my experience, not everyone who comes across conflicts and tough issues feels that they can.  So they leave.  Which we agree is not the optimum outcome, right?

So you’re asking, or more appropriately, inviting that everyone get the Spirit to change them from the inside for the betterment of all, which is what the Church is for. This is a fairly consistent message from virtually every Church source and resource. If you want to change the culture for the better, which I think everyone would agree with, get the Spirit and share it.

 

Building the Church culture is not about making interpretations like I did as a teenager (I was never bothered by what I observed)—it is about getting the Spirit (wherein lies the real freedom), and helping others to experience Him as fellow citizens with the saints, regardless of cultural background and personal makeup. If it was possible for me, it is possible anyone; whatever the advantage or disadvantage one has in staying with the Church, the Spirit will help (believe me, I had as many disadvantages as anyone!). I described a few ways the Church facilitates that and teaches us to do that.

 

"Hastening the work" starts with individuals and blesses others and the whole Church, not with telling everyone to adopt a personal conclusion about what is needed for a new-and-improved culture.

 

People who don’t feel they can “decide what fits and what doesn't fit and adjust accordingly” need a friend, a responsibility, and nurturing by the good word. They may need other, more specific attention from friends and the councils responsible for their shepherding. I suppose we have some horror stories because some are sometimes denied these things (President Hinckley shared his own experience of feeling at fault), but I don’t think they need the Church culture to change for them before they can be saved, or for everybody else to change before they do, because the Spirit will give them the freedom to cope with conflicts and tough issues and find comfort and progress where they can. Naturally if we know someone like this, we can help them. I do all the time!

[DBMormon]

Bob, you still seem to incorrectly think that because I believe in Evolution and Elder McConkie didn't that I am upset about his teaching something false.  Wrong.  I am perfectly comfortable with Evolution being either true or false.  What I am uncomfortable with is when anyone, apostle included, teaches an opinion (that may be right or wrong) as official doctrine when the First Presidency has specifically said the Church has no official stance on said issue and wishes not to draw that line.  This seems really simple and the fact you keep making it out like my argument is something other then it is tells me your not grasping this argument.  Others please pipe in, am I being unclear?

 

Also you say I have not suggested a solution - but earlier in this thread I shared in a quote what I could easily see a GA saying to help.  I will list several specifics so that you might see my point.

 

Tithing - The official policy is that Tithing is 10% of income paid annually.  Income can be interpreted as Gross, Net, or surplus (there are GA statements to back up all three interpretations).  How one arrives at which of the three is between them and the Lord.  So rather then teach it as Gross, we  could help members see that this principle like many others, is one where they are not to be commanded in all things by Gods servants but rather seek the Lord for an answer.  They could easily be taught openly that the choice is between them and the Lord and Gross should not be the automatic default definition.

 

Called of God - We should help members see that while we have Priesthood and Keys and others do not, that God has called and authorized many outside our faith to do his work.  This might dispel some of the arrogance found among LDS simply becasue they are LDS

 

Evolution - We should help members know this is not a litmus test.  That members are free to believe this issue either way till the Lord speaks otherwise, in spite of what some leaders in the past have taught.

 

Some of these next ones we have already started to do but I expect more and more of it.

 

Depression and mental illness - remove the stigma that these things are easy to fix if we just seek the lord and have a positive attitude (Elder Holland did a great job and now we may need a reminder from time to time)

 

Top leaders are capable of serious mistakes - Help members see that if they set too high a bar for those called of God, they may be dissappointed. (Elder Uchtdorf did this but it took 193 years for us to be this self honest about ourselves.  We need more of this to dispel entrenched beliefs that do not run along with his comments.

 

Following Prophets - We could teach more clearly that we while required to follow Prophets acting as prophets are not required to follow prophets and apostles blindly and that when they speak opinion and where Doctrine has not been set and where the Spirit has not confirmed, one is able to go against such opinion without feeling like they are apostates or not worthy.  (Elder Christofferson and Anderson touched on this in recent conferences when speaking of Doctrine but we still teach an implied "follow the prophet apostles no matter what" way more then to "seek the spirit to know when a prophet is acting as such"

 

Historical information - We could be more clear about what the Urim and Thummim is, about the context of the Book Of Abraham translation, about polyandry having occurred - to prevent members from being surpirised.  It does not have to be a focus, but sprinkled in would be helpful

 

These are some, there are others but this at least should display an approach I see as a possible solution to these issues.

Edited November 14, 2013 by DBMormon

[Stone holm]

Bob, you still seem to incorrectly think that because I believe in Evolution and Elder McConkie didn't that I am upset about his teaching something false.  Wrong.  I am perfectly comfortable with Evolution being either true or false.  What I am uncomfortable with is when anyone, apostle included, teaches an opinion (that may be right or wrong) as official doctrine when the First Presidency has specifically said the Church has no official stance on said issue and wishes not to draw that line.  This seems really simple and the fact you keep making it out like my argument is something other then it is tells me your not grasping this argument.  Others please pipe in, am I being unclear?

 

Also you say I have not suggested a solution - but earlier in this thread I shared in a quote what I could easily see a GA saying to help.  I will list several specifics so that you might see my point.

 

Tithing - The official policy is that Tithing is 10% of income paid annually.  Income can be interpreted as Gross, Net, or surplus (there are GA statements to back up all three interpretations).  How one arrives at which of the three is between them and the Lord.  So rather then teach it as Gross, we  could help members see that this principle like many others, is one where they are not to be commanded in all things by Gods servants but rather seek the Lord for an answer.  They could easily be taught openly that the choice is between them and the Lord and Gross should not be the automatic default definition.

 

Called of God - We should help members see that while we have Priesthood and Keys and others do not, that God has called and authorized many outside our faith to do his work.  This might dispel some of the arrogance found among LDS simply becasue they are LDS

 

Evolution - We should help members know this is not a litmus test.  That members are free to believe this issue either way till the Lord speaks otherwise, in spite of what some leaders in the past have taught.

 

Some of these next ones we have already started to do but I expect more and more of it.

 

Depression and mental illness - remove the stigma that these things are easy to fix if we just seek the lord and have a positive attitude (Elder Holland did a great job and now we may need a reminder from time to time)

 

Top leaders are capable of serious mistakes - Help members see that if they set too high a bar for those called of God, they may be dissappointed. (Elder Uchtdorf did this but it took 193 years for us to be this self honest about ourselves.  We need more of this to dispel entrenched beliefs that do not run along with his comments.

 

Following Prophets - We could teach more clearly that we while required to follow Prophets acting as prophets are not required to follow prophets and apostles blindly and that when they speak opinion and where Doctrine has not been set and where the Spirit has not confirmed, one is able to go against such opinion without feeling like they are apostates or not worthy.  (Elder Christofferson and Anderson touched on this in recent conferences when speaking of Doctrine but we still teach an implied "follow the prophet apostles no matter what" way more then to "seek the spirit to know when a prophet is acting as such"

 

Historical information - We could be more clear about what the Urim and Thummim is, about the context of the Book Of Abraham translation, about polyandry having occurred - to prevent members from being surpirised.  It does not have to be a focus, but sprinkled in would be helpful

 

These are some, there are others but this at least should display an approach I see as a possible solution to these issues.

Except, sometimes we do sort of have to follow some blindly like when they tell you to get on the Ark, or don't look back at certain cities, or go bath three times in a dirty river...that kind of stuff, which they don't seem to do much anymore.

[Tacenda]

My husband and I went to dinner with friends, and they started talking about a guy in their ward who told our friend who is in the HP presidency that he was receiving visions from God and was told to quit his job and prepare to move. Also that he saw his deceased son in the temple who spoke to him. This led to a discussion that felt weird because we were talking about things I'd never discussed with them for fear they'd think I was an apostate for believing it. But apparently they had their eyes open recently with different things on the internet and had just watched "10 Things You Didn't Know About Mormons" on the History Channel. I think the church can't go any faster in getting things out. I was trying to put a positive spin on their concerns, I now know what an apologist feels like, I don't want them to go through what I have.