Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[canard78]

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

How do we know that the leader wasn't mistaken in making the correction?

Where does it end?

[Stone holm]

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.  

 

I agree GAs are perceiving and understanding things from God through their particular cultural upbringing and life experience.  God rarely cuts things in stone like he did on Sinai, but works through gentle promptings of the Holy Ghost which eventually get processed mentally by the GA before coming out their mouths....that allows for defective processing which happens from time to time.

[DBMormon]

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

 

 

That's a really good question.  I was at one time mad about the feeling of the Church having intentionally deceived me by witholding information.  Why do some leave and some like me figure out a way to stay?  That could be a whole thread on its own.  I can only speak in terms of me.  I started off in a very black and white way of seeing things.  Over time I grew comfortable with nuance, with complexity, and with some facts not pointing to the Church being true while still recognizing it still could be.  That takes a lot of work.  I began seeing that the narrative in which I understood the Church and its history was many times different then the actual progression and circumstances that the events occurred.  I also no longer take what other members (even those with more experience and "wisdom") as facts.  The narrative most members use to describe the Church and its truth claims no longer bind me to the Church.  Rather my stripping down what is Doctrine and what isn't and once I rid myself of the nonsense, what I am left with leaves plenty of room for faith.

Jesus born on April 6th = nonsense

only definition of tithing is GROSS = nonsense

Earth 6,000 years old = non sense

Evolution having to be a heresy, leaders infallible, we have all truth, no-one outside the church called of God = all nonsense

Once I do this with about a 100 things then what is left becomes simple and easy to lead with faith believing.

To get there though is a lot of work, a lot of hard work that forces you to test everything you thought had to be true for the Church to be true.  And some do not put the work in and others simply come to a different conclusion and they leave.  that's ok with me.  Chase truth in whatever form you find it, be better tomorrow then today, and you are on the right path in my mind.

Edited November 4, 2013 by DBMormon

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

To make it even more confusing to some we will all be Sealed to each other, as one family in the Celestial Kingdom.

[CV75]

That's a really good question.  I was at one time mad about the feeling of the Church having intentionally deceived me by witholding information.  Why do some leave and some like me figure out a way to stay?  That could be a whole thread on its own.  I can only speak in terms of me.  I started off in a very black and white way of seeing things.  Over time I grew comfortable with nuance, with complexity, and with some facts not pointing to the Church being true while still recognizing it still could be.  That takes a lot of work.  I began seeing that the narrative in which I understood the Church and its history was many times different then the actual progression and circumstances that the events occurred.  I also no longer take what other members (even those with more experience and "wisdom") as facts.  The narrative most members use to describe the Church and its truth claims no longer bind me to the Church.  Rather my stripping down what is Doctrine and what isn't and once I rid myself of the nonsense, what I am left with leaves plenty of room for faith.

Jesus born on April 6th = nonsense

only definition of tithing is GROSS = nonsense

Earth 6,000 years old = non sense

Evolution having to be a heresy, leaders infallible, we have all truth, no-one outside the church called of God = all nonsense

Once I do this with about a 100 things then what is left becomes simple and easy to lead with faith believing.

To get there though is a lot of work, a lot of hard work that forces you to test everything you thought had to be true for the Church to be true.  And some do not put the work in and others simply come to a different conclusion and they leave.  that's ok with me.  Chase truth in whatever form you find it, be better tomorrow then today, and you are on the right path in my mind.

Are you saying that the key for staying with the Church was intellectual, shifting from a binary paradigm to one that is more variable? Or was that process in itself faith-driven?

[WmLaw]

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.

Interesting.  In another thread you mentioned that you'd never seen idolization happen.

[Thinking]

How do we know that the leader wasn't mistaken in making the correction?

Where does it end?

Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.

[Buckeye]

Hi Bill,

 

I haven't posted much lately, but I see you have.  For this topic, the best advice I can offer is a series of rambling thoughts.  I hope they help.

 

1) President' Uchtdorf's remarks regarding mistakes by leaders is helpful and likely something we will hear repeated more often.  Some members develop a belief that leaders do not make mistakes.  Or at least leaders they have never met do not make mistakes (read: high-level GAs and past prophets/apostles).  When they learn about some action or teaching they would consider a mistake, that knowledge can be jarring to their testimony.  Hence President Uchtdorf's important admission.

 

2) I rather doubt we will hear official pronouncements regarding specific mistakes other than (i) mistakes which the speaker made himself (e.g., Elder Faust lamenting not helping his mother carry wood; Moroni lamenting his language abilities) and (ii) historical or scriptural mistakes already understood by the general membership (e.g., Captain Moroni misunderstanding Zarahemla's failure to provide provisions; God's rebuke of Joseph for neglecting his family).  There are sufficient current examples to establish the point that leaders make mistakes.

 

3) I believe we will see additional acknowledgement by the church regarding difficult historical issues.  This will not be and "admission of mistakes," but rather providing a fuller context.  As one example, the church's new Revelations In Context series includes information that is not exactly faith promoting, but presented in a way that a faith-based narrative can be given.  We will see more of that. 

 

4) I do not believe we will hear official pronouncements as to whether big-name issues such as polygamy, the racial priesthood ban, etc. are "mistakes."  As much as you or I may like to have the record cleaned up on such subjects (enough with the "we don't know), there is simply far too much to lose and far too little to gain by dwelling on big negative issues.  At the same time, I think there will be a growing acceptance for members to believe that these and other issues are mistakes.  When Professor Bott defended the priesthood ban the church was quick to rebuke.  But I doubt the church would rebuke a member who gave his own opinion that the priesthood ban was racially-motivated.  As time goes by, if the only allowable narratives are "we don't know" and "it was a mistake" then gradually the membership will embrace "it was a mistake" without the church having to say so.  Older members who can't accept the "mistake" position will die off.  Younger members who need an answer and were never wedded to the prior (now repudiated explanations) will find solace in the "it was a mistake" explanation.  Polygamy may be harder to do, but will follow the same course. 

 

5) Continued discussions of mistakes will cause pressure for defining doctrine v. policy v. practice v. whatever other terms we invent.  IMO, at the end of the day no one really cares what term is used, but most members do want there to be some "core" body of teachings that are immovable.  (e.g., existence of God; cuteness of kittens).  So while the offical line is being moved to allow for belief in mistakes, there will be a cooresponding effort to draw new lines and reassert that "but ABC will never change because XYZ."  That will be interesting.

 

4) IMO, there is great value in letting mistakes die.  Perhaps this is a subject for another post, but if we are truely trying to emulate God, and if God remembers sins no more (once repented of), then shouldn't we also forget.  For me, this is a personal issue.  On my mission, I was trained by an Elder who was finishing his service.  On one of his final days, we visited a single sister (you could do that then) and it came out in the meeting that she had had an affair with another Elder a few years back.  When we left the meeting, my companion turned to me and said, "You were not supposed to hear that.  Sister ### has fully repented and no one but the bishop knows.  All the missionaries that knew have finished their service, save me.  Even the MP doesn't know.  This sister deserves a clean slate.  You will never speak to another of this fact and knowledge of this will die when you leave the mission."  To my credit, I kept that knowledge.  No one ever learned from me.  I was proud to let a knowledge of that mistake die when I got on a plane 20 months later.  So while I believe in searching out truth, it's important to remember that these historical issues are not just "facts" they are people.  I've come to the conclusion and Laman/Lemual and Thomas Marsh will inheret some degree of glory just for having their names wiped through the mud in gospel doctrine each month. 

 

5) The big big issues are not historical mistakes.  They are (i) what to do with current mistakes and, especially, (ii) what to do when current leaders make doctrinal mistakes.  (I define "doctrine" to mean simply "current teachings")  I sense a general, and growing, tolerance for members to believe that current leaders can make mistakes, even doctrinal ones, as well as a tolerance for members to not feel obligated to follow something they do not believe in (e.g., Prop 8 ).  There is also a growing acceptance among members for differing views on matters that really don't matter to the way we live - global flood, no death before the fall, evolution, etc.  But what about the YWP who doesn't believe in the gender-priesthood restriction?  Or the primary teacher who supports civil gay marriage.  Or the gospel doctrine teacher who believes the BOM is allegorical?  Yes, at the I sense a growing tolerance in church leadership, I also sense a palpable concern as to when this all will end. 

 

Sorry for rambles.  Again, I hope they help.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Buckeye

[Closet Doubter]

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.

Apparently they are fulfilling the prophetic words of a preacher that when asked what he teaches stated "doctrines of men, mingled with scripture".

[Closet Doubter]

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.

The problem the church leaders have is that if they refuse to acknowledge at least the big mistakes people will search it out and end up at websites like M..... T.... That list many of them very clearly with the perception of stating both sides clearly. These websites in short order will be given more credibility than the churches websites.

[Scott Lloyd]

4) I do not believe we will hear official pronouncements as to whether big-name issues such as polygamy, the racial priesthood ban, etc. are "mistakes."  As much as you or I may like to have the record cleaned up on such subjects (enough with the "we don't know), there is simply far too much to lose and far too little to gain by dwelling on big negative issues.  At the same time, I think there will be a growing acceptance for members to believe that these and other issues are mistakes.  When Professor Bott defended the priesthood ban the church was quick to rebuke.  But I doubt the church would rebuke a member who gave his own opinion that the priesthood ban was racially-motivated.  As time goes by, if the only allowable narratives are "we don't know" and "it was a mistake" then gradually the membership will embrace "it was a mistake" without the church having to say so.  Older members who can't accept the "mistake" position will die off.  Younger members who need an answer and were never wedded to the prior (now repudiated explanations) will find solace in the "it was a mistake" explanation.  Polygamy may be harder to do, but will follow the same course. 

 

What I see here is a yearning for bottom-up or populist determinations on matters on which only the Lord's chosen servants are authorized to make pronouncements.

 

Preventing this sort of thing is one of the functions of the much-maligned priesthood correlation process.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

What I see hear is a yearning for bottom-up or populist determinations on matter on which only the Lord's chosen servants are authorized to make pronouncements.

 

Preventing this sort of thing is one of the functions of the much-maligned priesthood correlation process.

 

The yearning is a natural desire to know "why."  All people are born with it.  I hope to never lose it.  Brigham thought there should be a reason for the ban.  JFS, BRM, and many other church leaders did so as well.  That's why they felt it important to explain "why."  So I don't see why any current member (myself included) should be ashamed for thinking the same.  There should be an explanation.  If the heaven's are open, we can expect them to speak on this issue as well as any other.

 

And, actually, I am not an opponent of correlation.  I see it as a useful, albeit two-edge, sword.  But correlation is only useful if there is a message to propogate.  "We don't know" isn't much of a message.  Members in a church with Joseph as a principle example will seek elsewhere for answers if the church does not provide them.  That doesn't mean they will leave the church.  But in the absense of any direction as to what to believe, members will come up with their own un-correlated beliefs.  What else would you expect?

Edited November 4, 2013 by Buckeye

[Hamba Tuhan]

How do we know that the leader wasn't mistaken in making the correction?

Where does it end?

 

It ends when Church leaders finally all agree with me.

[T-Shirt]

I agree with Elder Eyring:

 

It has always been hard to recognize in fallible human beings the authorized servants of God. Paul must have seemed an ordinary man to many. Joseph Smith’s cheerful disposition was seen by some as not fitting their expectations for a prophet of God.

Satan will always work on the Saints of God to undermine their faith in priesthood keys. One way he does it is to point out the humanity of those who hold them. He can in that way weaken our testimony and so cut us loose from the line of keys by which the Lord ties us to Him and can take us and our families home to Him and to our Heavenly Father.

Satan succeeded in undermining the testimony of men who had, with Joseph Smith, seen the heavens opened and heard the voices of angels. The evidence of their physical eyes and ears was not enough when they no longer could feel the testimony that the priesthood keys were still in place with Joseph.

The warning for us is plain. If we look for human frailty in humans, we will always find it. When we focus on finding the frailties of those who hold priesthood keys, we run risks for ourselves. When we speak or write to others of such frailties, we put them at risk.

We live in a world where finding fault in others seems to be the favorite blood sport. It has long been the basis of political campaign strategy. It is the theme of much television programming across the world. It sells newspapers. Whenever we meet anyone, our first, almost unconscious reaction may be to look for imperfections.

To keep ourselves grounded in the Lord’s Church, we can and must train our eyes to recognize the power of the Lord in the service of those He has called. We must be worthy of the companionship of the Holy Ghost. And we need to pray for the Holy Ghost to help us know that men who lead us hold this power. For me, such prayers are most often answered when I am fully engaged in the Lord’s service myself.

Edited November 4, 2013 by T-Shirt

[Stone holm]

What I see hear is a yearning for bottom-up or populist determinations on matter on which only the Lord's chosen servants are authorized to make pronouncements.

 

Preventing this sort of thing is one of the functions of the much-maligned priesthood correlation process.

 

I suspect that we also see the natural built in American tendency to distrust centralized authority, and though we Mormons tend to allow greater room for that in our religion which makes us one of the most unified and efficiently organized religions -- still tends to cut against our cultural grain which is against centralized authority and distrust of anything that is not thoroughly laid out in reason.  It is a tension that will never completely go away.

[Scott Lloyd]

The yearning is a natural desire to know "why."  All people are born with it.  I hope to never lose it.  Brigham thought there should be a reason for the ban.  JFS, BRM, and many other church leaders did so as well.  That's why they felt it important to explain "why."  So I don't see why any current member (myself included) should be ashamed for thinking the same.  There should be an explanation.  If the heaven's are open, we can expect them to speak on this issue as well as any other.

 

If the phrase "the heavens are open" means to you that you can expect revelation on demand, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

I would commend to you this analogy from Elder Dallin H. Oaks. I've seen him use it before, but this is the most recent instance I know of, in the issue of the Ensign in August of this year:

 

About 35 years ago, when I was president of Brigham Young University, we were making plans to persuade the president of the United States to speak at the university. We had particular times that would suit our convenience, and we had in mind some things we wanted him to say and do while he was there. But all of us were wise enough to know that we could not contact the highest authority in the United States and invite him to come to the BYU campus—even to speak to 26,000 people—and put conditions on his appearance.

We knew that in inviting the president, we had to say in effect, “We will welcome you whenever you can come and for whatever time you choose to be here and for whatever you choose to say and do while you are here. We will accommodate our schedules and our arrangements entirely to your visit.”

Now, if that’s the way a community of 26,000 people must approach the highest authority of a nation, it should not be surprising that one person—however important—is in no position to put conditions upon or to impose personal timing upon a visit or communication from the Highest Authority in the universe.

Indeed, this is the principle the Lord revealed to His children in the great revelation printed in the 88th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Lord said, “Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you; seek me diligently and ye shall find me; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (verse 63).

Next, the Lord declared that if our eye is single to His glory, our whole body will be filled with light and we will be able to comprehend all things. Then, His instruction continued with this great promise: “Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will” (verse 68; emphasis added).

The principle stated in that revelation applies to every communication from our Heavenly Father. We cannot force spiritual things.

(Elder Oaks's emphasis, not mine.)

 

 

And, actually, I am not an opponent of correlation.  I see it as a useful, albeit two-edge, sword.  But correlation is only useful if there is a message to propogate.  "We don't know" isn't much of a message.  Members in a church with Joseph as a principle example will seek elsewhere for answers if the church does not provide them.  That doesn't mean they will leave the church.  But in the absense of any direction as to what to believe, members will come up with their own un-correlated beliefs.  What else would you expect?

 

If they profess to be disciples, I would expect them to behave as disciples behave: to be humble and patient, to "wait upon the Lord," to receive revelation from God when He sees fit to bestow it, and in the meantime, not to preach for doctrines their own unauthoritative and potentially divisive conjecture.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

If the phrase "the heavens are open" means to you that you can expect revelation on demand, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

I would commend to you this analogy from Elder Dallin H. Oaks. I've seen him use it before, but this is the most recent instance I know of, in the issue of the Ensign in August of this year:

 

If they profess to be disciples, I would expect them to behave as disciples behave: to be humble and patient, to "wait upon the Lord," to receive revelation from God when He sees fit to bestow it, and in the meantime, not to preach for doctrines their own unauthoritative and potentially divisive conjecture.

 

Wow!  I agree with you Scott.

[Scott Lloyd]

I suspect that we also see the natural built in American tendency to distrust centralized authority, and though we Mormons tend to allow greater room for that in our religion which makes us one of the most unified and efficiently organized religions -- still tends to cut against our cultural grain which is against centralized authority and distrust of anything that is not thoroughly laid out in reason.  It is a tension that will never completely go away.

Though as Americans, Mormons in the United States may have a largely populist and democratic mentality, we also embrace what Richard Bushman called "the routinization of charisma."  It might be defined as the widespread acceptance among the Latter-day Saints that whatever men and women in the Church do in fulfillment of their individual callings, it is for the most part accomplished under divine guidance. If this is true at the local level, it is most assuredly true at the general level.

 

Therefore, at least among those who are humble, and faithful, there is not apt to be a mistrust of a central leadership of the Church. Because, you see, we believe that ultimately, the Church is governed by Jesus Christ.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow!  I agree with you Scott.

[Stone holm]

Though as Americans, Mormons in the United States may have a largely populist and democratic mentality, we also embrace what Richard Bushman called "the routinization of charisma."  It might be defined as the widespread acceptance among the Latter-day Saints that whatever men and women in the Church do in fulfillment of their individual callings, it is for the most part accomplished under divine guidance. If this is true at the local level, it is most assuredly true at the general level.

 

Therefore, at least among those who are humble, and faithful, there is not apt to be a mistrust of a central leadership of the Church. Because, you see, we believe that ultimately, the Church is governed by Jesus Christ.

 

I would agree that we as Mormons tend to be accepting of leadership, it normally takes some kind of shock at something to cause one to question something, but in the main even then I think we tend to be accepting.  In my personal case, I tend to be more accepting of it at the bottom and get edgier as it climbs in altitude, but I think I am abnormal in that respect, for most Mormons humble and faithful or otherwise, the tendency is the opposite more deference is accorded at the top and the deference decreases as you go down the ladder.

[Palerider]

 

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

Not according to my Bible chronology.

Paul had just been a recent (albeit extraordinary) convert to the Church about the time Peter was in Joppa, lodging with Simon the tanner when Peter received the revelation regarding the Gentiles. See Acts 9 and 10.

Later disagreements with Paul were concerning Peter's willingness to ignore the Law of Moses while dining soley with Gentiles but then turning an about-face and adhereing to it when in the presence of new Jewish converts to Christianity, there by setting up a tension in the Church regarding those who thought the Law must be continued (Judaisers) and those who did not.

The revelation had been given. The problem/question was, would it be obeyed?

[Storm Rider]

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

 

Glenn, that is a sad situation. I can see a parent being disappointed in the choices of a child, but to demand that they confess to them? That seems...un-Mormon. It is none of your business rolls off the tongue quickly. We are such odd creatures at times.

[rodheadlee]

You nailed it T Shirt.

[Tacenda]

The problem the church leaders have is that if they refuse to acknowledge at least the big mistakes people will search it out and end up at websites like M..... T..... That list many of them very clearly with the perception of stating both sides clearly. These websites in short order will be given more credibility than the churches websites.

Unable to share the photo because I saw it on FB's "A Thoughtful Faith" support group. Someone shared a photo of a billboard along the I-15 highway that is simply, www.m.....t.....com, in big font. Looks like the church has little time to fill in the blanks in church history. ETA: fill in the blanks here. Edited November 5, 2013 by Tacenda

[Coreyb]

I don't think they will ever admit to specific mistakes in a general conference simply because it is intended for a general audience. It is for this same reason that I have to cautiously filter some of the comments I make in my ysa ward gospel doctrine class, there are those present who will be blindsided by what I say having no idea such a controversy exists. Neither general conference nor my gospel doctrine class are sufficiently intimate settings for those conversations to be discussed for a person with a limited gospel/church knowledge. I do wish that the brethren would address these topics, but there just aren't many places they can speak to an audience where their comments wont be blasted over the internet to again, a general audience. A couple years ago I was a missionary in Oklahoma and we were visited by a general authority, Larry W. Gibbons. Just a second quorum seventy but a general authority nonetheless. Since we were in the middle of the Bible belt, naturally we were exposed to TONS of "anti" and historical questions from the good Christian folks we attempted to serve. We had a Q&A session with Elder Gibbons at the end of his sermon and I was surprised both at the questions asked by the missionaries, and the frankness with which they were discussed by him. It probably wasn't as "frank" as some on this thread are looking for, but it was far more open than anything you will hear from conference or anything else from the first presidency or the apostles. It was quite refreshing, and I like to believe that sort of thing happens throughout the church, but I don't know if it does.