Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[Palerider]

 

This is very succinct and a very pertinent challenge.

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

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

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

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

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

I see another option here that seldom gets mentioned although I have on occasion heard it from different authorities.

One of the attributes of truly humble people is that when asked a question that they don't know the answer to they straightly confess, "I don't know".

So we are left with the dilema of general authorities that are speaking either by the Spirit (which would be revelation) or they are speculating, in which case they should keep their mouths closed. Even the Apostle Paul would qualify his remarks as an opinion when he wasn't sure, which was extremely seldom.

But when you have someone the stature of Brigham Young, teaching Adam-God from the pulpit and then having later authorities declare that doctrine false, it gives one pause as to what other "doctrines" might be declared false at a later date, i.e. priesthood bans.....

Going back to my original point, why, if they don't KNOW what is doctrine do they feel the need to speak authoritatively that which is not doctrine? Better to be quiet I would suppose.

[Stone holm]

If we expect any mortal to nail it every time when trying to sift out revelation from either cultural dispositions or wishful thinking, we are going to eventually be disappointed. It is sufficient to have a firm testimony that they are good people who do not intend to deceive and have exclusive authority to speak for the Church.

[CV75]

 But when you have someone the stature of Brigham Young, teaching Adam-God from the pulpit and then having later authorities declare that doctrine false, it gives one pause as to what other "doctrines" might be declared false at a later date, i.e. priesthood bans.....

Going back to my original point, why, if they don't KNOW what is doctrine do they feel the need to speak authoritatively that which is not doctrine? Better to be quiet I would suppose.

If your point is saying “I don’t know” is better than being quiet, and being quiet is better than opining, then I’d have to agree that is a good rule of thumb.

 

Bit if one authority's stumbling (real or perceived) on this principle is enough to cast doubt on everything and anything every other authority says and does, then it is also better for the offended to say “I don’t know” and exercise faith than to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of the fallibility of others.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

D&C 121: 16-22

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

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

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

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

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

There are two problematic poles here, Tiki:

 

On the one hand, there are those who want to glorify and create an absurd, idolized figure in their leaders (which can be very embarrassing to the leaders themselves when they are yet with us), which can easily lead to huge disappointment (and even apostasy) when they find out that he's not God incarnate.

 

On the other hand, there are those who insist on denigrating any person's motives and authentic achievements, no matter how good they might have been in reality -- perhaps wanting to bring everyone and everything down to their own foul level.

 

In scholarship the classic poles are minimalism and maximalism, skepticism and credulity, and the like.

 

In real life, we need to negotiate this Scylla & Charybdis in order to find a middle path and to make coherent sense of actual evidence and experience, hopefully coming up with reasonable appraisals, instead of the malarkey which is often the bill of fare on so many blogs.

[Robert F. Smith]

Its a neat saying.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3DOP

I understand what you are saying, Rory, and I can see that it would be difficult for Roman Catholicism to "turn on a dime" as it were.  The U.S. Supreme Court has a similar problem with stare decisis.  The LDS Church, on the other hand, is not quite so hemmed in as to which direction it might go, and changes in direction can be made with relative alacrity.  Stiil, there are some changes which I doubt we will see, now or in the future:  Female priesthood, reinstitution of polygyny, etc.

[Stone holm]

If your point is saying “I don’t know” is better than being quiet, and being quiet is better than opining, then I’d have to agree that is a good rule of thumb.

 

Bit if one authority's stumbling (real or perceived) on this principle is enough to cast doubt on everything and anything every other authority says and does, then it is also better for the offended to say “I don’t know” and exercise faith than to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of the fallibility of others.

I don't think anyone expects the GAs to take a vow of silence, or to suddenly discard every thing they think they know when they are called as such. Nor should we demote them to the status of robots saying only and precisely and exclusively what The Lord puts in their mouths. We only have the right to expect them to be somewhat cautious in what, when, where and how they say things and to not lead us astray, their primary purpose being to testify of Christ and secondarily to issue a call to repentance and administer the Church.

[rpn]

A major problem is that we only have revelation that establishes clearly that two things were mistakes:

(1) The interpretation of sealing that had people being sealed to leaders or those they thought righteous, which the Lord corrected in revelation to Wilford Woodruff telling the saints to just be sealed to their own ancestors.  (Refer to intro to Wilford Woodruff manual and the lesson on temple work).

(2) That Blacks could not have the priesthood accompanied by all the rhetoric about why, overturned by  revelation in 1978.

 

If we talked about what was a mistake other than that, we simply don't have the information to do so accurately.   Some would argue the church position on same gender marriage is a mistake.  Others would argue that the silk worm farming was a mistake, simply because it failed.  Or the City Creek Mall because it is too commercial.    But that doesn't make them mistakes.

[canard78]

I see another option here that seldom gets mentioned although I have on occasion heard it from different authorities.

One of the attributes of truly humble people is that when asked a question that they don't know the answer to they straightly confess, "I don't know".

So we are left with the dilema of general authorities that are speaking either by the Spirit (which would be revelation) or they are speculating, in which case they should keep their mouths closed. Even the Apostle Paul would qualify his remarks as an opinion when he wasn't sure, which was extremely seldom.

But when you have someone the stature of Brigham Young, teaching Adam-God from the pulpit and then having later authorities declare that doctrine false, it gives one pause as to what other "doctrines" might be declared false at a later date, i.e. priesthood bans.....

Going back to my original point, why, if they don't KNOW what is doctrine do they feel the need to speak authoritatively that which is not doctrine? Better to be quiet I would suppose.

I think having an opinion is valuable and appreciated. I can understand why GAs feel cautious these days of expressing an opinion because people are so quick to turn it into a statement of doctrine.

I suppose as long as their are opinions there will be differences of opinions.

[Palerider]

 

I don't think anyone expects the GAs to take a vow of silence, or to suddenly discard every thing they think they know when they are called as such. Nor should we demote them to the status of robots saying only and precisely and exclusively what The Lord puts in their mouths. We only have the right to expect them to be somewhat cautious in what, when, where and how they say things and to not lead us astray, their primary purpose being to testify of Christ and secondarily to issue a call to repentance and administer the Church.

On the contrary, as I recall members are consistently advised not to speak out of turn and especially about things of which they are unsure. They are definitely told not to speculate.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I should think that G.A's would be the first to set the example by following their own advice.

Either declare that you speak on behalf of the Lord (if indeed one does) or keep your mouth shut or say "We don't know" the answer.

[Palerider]

 

I think having an opinion is valuable and appreciated. I can understand why GAs feel cautious these days of expressing an opinion because people are so quick to turn it into a statement of doctrine.

I suppose as long as their are opinions there will be differences of opinions.

I think there is a great example in the Scriptures as to how this process should take place. I would refer you to II Samuel 7: 1-17.

Here the prophet Nathan gives his opinion as to King David's desire to build a temple to the Lord. The opinion is incorrect and almost immediately that evening the Lord corrects Nathan and gives accurate instruction for him to carry back to David as to when and by whom the temple will be built.

Wouldn't that be great to have that kind of revelation in our own time..........

Edited November 4, 2013 by Palerider

[Sky]

One of the issues with admitting specific mistakes, I think, is that it is subjective.  I don't see the leaders of the Church making a list which could undermine faith in living prophets - one of the central tenants of the Church.  I see the Church going more in the direction of what is outlined in 2 Nephi 25: 26

 

 

And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.      

 

So anything which doesn't help to further accomplish this end, I don't see the Church spending a lot of time focusing on.  

 

That said, if I were to name specific things that I personally view as mistakes or sins, I would probably include:

 

- Mountain Meadows Massacre 

- Blacks and the Priesthood - especially considering the fact that Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the Priesthood

- Polygamy?

- certain things that were taught about homosexuality, which don't jibe with the current approach on http://www.mormonsandgays.org

- too much emphasis on perfectionism?  As though I will never be good enough or measure up...When are my own best efforts enough?  

 

And the list could go on, but so could my list of things that I view as strengths...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stone holm]

On the contrary, as I recall members are consistently advised not to speak out of turn and especially about things of which they are unsure. They are definitely told not to speculate.What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I should think that G.A's would be the first to set the example by following their own advice.Either declare that you speak on behalf of the Lord (if indeed one does) or keep your mouth shut or say "We don't know" the answer.

Yeah, but members consistently ignore that advice because after all most of us are Americans, and we don't defer to mortal authority well so...we tend not to keep our mouths shut, and somehow I don't think The Lord is really all that interested in us being a bunch of bubbleheads anyway.

[Storm Rider]

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

 

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

-  sharing opinions on science when there is no Doctrine

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

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

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

 

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

 

DB, do you really think that if we got together and wrote these down and published them to the world, apologized for our wrongs and the harm we caused, that it would prevent anyone from leaving the Church again? I have never thought people to be so single in their focus; we are complex and there are a host of reasons why an individual leaves the Church. People are learning and they are at various places all along the continuum of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. There are some topics I just don't discuss with some people and with others feel quite free to do so. For me the priesthood thing can easily be called a mistake and at the same time God himself restricted priesthood for thousands of years; in fact, he restricted his people to some really atrocious humans in a tiny area and let everyone else rot in ignorance. The WW is a policy that has no merit, but the Prophet still requires obedience to enter the temple. If "you" want an excuse to be bothered, offended, you will find a reason. Admitting these will do nothing to stop an individual's apostasy.  Although I appreciate your concern, your reasons seem a bit naïve to me. 

[Glenn101]

DB, do you really think that if we got together and wrote these down and published them to the world, apologized for our wrongs and the harm we caused, that it would prevent anyone from leaving the Church again? I have never thought people to be so single in their focus; we are complex and there are a host of reasons why an individual leaves the Church. People are learning and they are at various places all along the continuum of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. There are some topics I just don't discuss with some people and with others feel quite free to do so. For me the priesthood thing can easily be called a mistake and at the same time God himself restricted priesthood for thousands of years; in fact, he restricted his people to some really atrocious humans in a tiny area and let everyone else rot in ignorance. The WW is a policy that has no merit, but the Prophet still requires obedience to enter the temple. If "you" want an excuse to be bothered, offended, you will find a reason. Admitting these will do nothing to stop an individual's apostasy.  Although I appreciate your concern, your reasons seem a bit naïve to me. 

 

 

I have an uncle who basically shut one of his daughters out of his life because she would not confess to him that she had sinned about a certain circumstance.

 

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

A major problem is that we only have revelation that establishes clearly that two things were mistakes:

(1) The interpretation of sealing that had people being sealed to leaders or those they thought righteous, which the Lord corrected in revelation to Wilford Woodruff telling the saints to just be sealed to their own ancestors.  (Refer to intro to Wilford Woodruff manual and the lesson on temple work).

(2) That Blacks could not have the priesthood accompanied by all the rhetoric about why, overturned by  revelation in 1978.

 

If we talked about what was a mistake other than that, we simply don't have the information to do so accurately.   Some would argue the church position on same gender marriage is a mistake.  Others would argue that the silk worm farming was a mistake, simply because it failed.  Or the City Creek Mall because it is too commercial.    But that doesn't make them mistakes.

You make the same mistake as Palerider in assuming that time-bound practices or revelations are for all time.  As though God's revelation to Noah to build an ark is applicable to all people in all times.  It is helpful to examine the numerous biblical instances of God's commands in one time being changed in another, perhaps even noting the petulance of the prophet Jona, or the comeuppance received by Peter in thinking that Gentiles could only become Christians via conversion to Judaism and through observance of Kosher rules, etc.

 

There is no reason to believe that some specifics of 19th century Mormon sealing practices were an aberration or a mistake, even though they were practiced for a limited time.

 

Such holy ordinances are not to be compared to more mundane financial or policy decisions.  To do so is a category mistake.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Hamba Tuhan]

But what are the specific mistakes?

Too easy. If something runs counter to your personal preferences or political sensibilities, then it must have been a mistake. I mean, it couldn't possibly be that you are mistaken, right?

Edited November 4, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[3DOP]

I understand what you are saying, Rory, and I can see that it would be difficult for Roman Catholicism to "turn on a dime" as it were.  The U.S. Supreme Court has a similar problem with stare decisis.  The LDS Church, on the other hand, is not quite so hemmed in as to which direction it might go, and changes in direction can be made with relative alacrity.  Stiil, there are some changes which I doubt we will see, now or in the future:  Female priesthood, reinstitution of polygyny, etc.

 

Hi Robert,

 

I appreciate your thoughts too. What some designate as "problems", for institutions like the Supreme Court, or Catholic Church, are designated as "safeguards" by those who are concerned for judicial or doctrinal continuity as the case may be. 

 

Regarding the Church, it was speculated by one of my favorite LDS here that there would be terrible consequences should the Catholic Church "come clean" regarding the Vatican Bank. I know very little about the bank, but the Church openly teaches and admits that her own prelates may be unworthy of their offices. If the Church were to theoretically reverse her position on, let us say, the principle behind the granting of indulgences, it would be an apologetical nightmare. The Vatican Bank? Somebody stole money I guess? It goes up to the pope? I don't know. So if the pope and his bank officers don't truly repent, they get to go to Hell. I understand that it would be a scandal and stumblingblock to the weak. Besides breaking a commandment, that is another reason it would be such a serious sin. But I don't see how it could present any kind of problem apologetically. It does not violate any principle of Catholic teaching to admit that popes or his friends can go to Hell as easily, perhaps more easily, than those of us not entrusted with the obligations of a shepherd of God's flock.  

 

Rory 

Edited November 4, 2013 by 3DOP

[DBMormon]

 

I think there is a great example in the Scriptures as to how this process should take place. I would refer you to II Samuel 7: 1-17.

Here the prophet Nathan gives his opinion as to King David's desire to build a temple to the Lord. The opinion is incorrect and almost immediately that evening the Lord corrects Nathan and gives accurate instruction for him to carry back to David as to when and by whom the temple will be built.

Wouldn't that be great to have that kind of revelation in our own time..........

 

 

At the same time we also have examples that are opposite.  Peter went some time holding fast to not giving the gentiles the gospel.  Some time had passed, disagreements with Paul and others, and finally a revelation came

[DBMormon]

Too easy. If something runs counter to your personal preferences or political sensibilities, then it must have been a mistake. I mean, it couldn't possibly be that you are mistaken, right?

 

I have been mistaken about multiple things and if you have followed me from the start on here, you would easily see that I have changed several views.  That said, I think most of what I call mistakes, have pretty good evidence for being so as I can show

- first presidency letters that contradict the leader's statement that I think is a mistake.  

- I can show a prophet's journal entry that corrects another leaders error

- I can show one leaders statement saying another leader's statement is false doctrine

- I can show a leaders statement admitting his previous statements were false

 

so in regards to things I say are mistakes, I feel I am on pretty safe ground

[CV75]

I don't think anyone expects the GAs to take a vow of silence, or to suddenly discard every thing they think they know when they are called as such. Nor should we demote them to the status of robots saying only and precisely and exclusively what The Lord puts in their mouths. We only have the right to expect them to be somewhat cautious in what, when, where and how they say things and to not lead us astray, their primary purpose being to testify of Christ and secondarily to issue a call to repentance and administer the Church.

We actually have the right to expect anything we want, as you can see from all the fallible comments made on this thread!

 

We sustain the GAs, and they ask us for our prayers, because they are fallible and they know it. As we do this, we don't get discouraged when our fallible or pefectly inspired expectations are not met.

[CV75]

so in regards to things I say are mistakes, I feel I am on pretty safe ground

What is the difference between your reaction to these mistakes and the reactions of those who fall away from the Church?

[Stone holm]

One of the issues with admitting specific mistakes, I think, is that it is subjective.  I don't see the leaders of the Church making a list which could undermine faith in living prophets - one of the central tenants of the Church.  I see the Church going more in the direction of what is outlined in 2 Nephi 25: 26

 

 

And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.      

 

So anything which doesn't help to further accomplish this end, I don't see the Church spending a lot of time focusing on.  

 

That said, if I were to name specific things that I personally view as mistakes or sins, I would probably include:

 

- Mountain Meadows Massacre 

- Blacks and the Priesthood - especially considering the fact that Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the Priesthood

- Polygamy?

- certain things that were taught about homosexuality, which don't jibe with the current approach on http://www.mormonsandgays.org

- too much emphasis on perfectionism?  As though I will never be good enough or measure up...When are my own best efforts enough?  

 

And the list could go on, but so could my list of things that I view as strengths...

Don't see polygamy as a mistake, nor has the doctrine been repudiated, its debatable whether Mountain Meadows was ever sanctioned, and perfection was defined since Brigham Young's days as doing the best you know how.

[Sky]

Don't see polygamy as a mistake, nor has the doctrine been repudiated, its debatable whether Mountain Meadows was ever sanctioned, and perfection was defined since Brigham Young's days as doing the best you know how.

 

See what I mean by subjective?  And notice that I put a question mark next to polygamy.  

 

But we learn that our forebears were humans trying to do the best they could with what they had considering their circumstances and the time period they lived in.  As a general rule, I try to cut them some slack and give them the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, and hope they look down on us and do the same.  

[omni]

Why not use the mistakes of our past leaders as teaching opportunities for applying Christ's atonement in our lives. We often hear examples of our modern prophets good deeds, but never hear about how they took advantage of Christ's greatest gift to us.

I wouldn't expect a laundry list of all their sins, but I believe it would be helpful to many members to know the the brethren have been through the repentance process and have come out the other side better for it.

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

Inspiration isn't perfection. Beethoven was inspired, but not perfect.

 

Actually we are. We are required to ask of the Lord if these things are not true,.