Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[canard78]

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.

I really liked your "ramblings" - especially "6" and "8"

I am becoming fine with the notion that prop 8 was a huge error of judgement. The church leaders learned from that mistake and the approach in Hawaii (prayerfully make your own mind up either way) or the complete non-intervention in Eastern states is very refreshing.

[Robert F. Smith]

You nailed it T Shirt.

No he didn't.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................................ 

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 

I agree, Rory.

What is more, LDS Church monies have been stolen by at least one (and likely more) trusted bookkeeper at Church HQ.  These things happen, and that is why the Church has auditors personally examine the books at every level of the Church.  I've been through such Church audits at the ward level, and they are careful and detailed.  Trust but verify.

Bob

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I'm glad to find that you have jettisoned the nonsense.  You should.  Why?  Because none of the items you list as "nonsense" were or are LDS doctrine, and I would hazard the guess that your hundred other items are likewise non-doctrinal.  You claim here that most Mormons believe that kind of claptrap, but you don't bother to provide us with polling evidence or academic journal articles which would back up your claim.  You yourself admit that you began with "a very black and white way of seeing things," and only later realized that it was wrong.  In my experience there are plenty of Mormons who believe that folklore is identical with doctrine, and that will continue to be a problem for some people.  I have also noticed that rigid, brittle, black & white believers are the first to crumble when the truth is pointed out to them.

Read Mike Ash, The Shaken Faith Syndrome, 2nd ed. (2013).

[Robert F. Smith]

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

On another thread someone repeated the false old claim that Mormons idolize Joseph and Brigham, and (typically) provided no evidence that this was so.  I objected to that scurrilous claim.  However, it is true that there are occasional yokels who accept infallibility folklore or otherwise claim that the prophets are superhuman and demand to be worshiped, just as there are yokels who claim that idolization is typical Mormon conduct.  As DBMormon would say, "nonsense"!

Edited November 5, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Given the level of ignorance of most people both in and out of the LDS Church, that is no surprise.  Trusting websites on the internet is like playing Russian roulette.  Both facts and interpretation quickly get lost in the feverish process.

[Storm Rider]

On another thread someone repeated the false old claim that Mormons idolize Joseph and Brigham, and (typically) provided no evidence that this was so.  I objected to that scurrilous claim.  However, it is true that there are occasional yokels who accept infallibility folklore or otherwise claim that the prophets are superhuman and demand to be worshiped, just as there are yokels who claim that idolization is typical Mormon conduct.  As DBMormon would say, "nonsense"!

 

I find the perception/claim that LDS idolize JS or BY to border on gross exaggeration and generalization. If anything the common LDS has difficulty defining when the prophet is acting as the prophet and when is he acting as a man. This is compounded by the fact that we quite often assume that a calling, even that of prophet, apostle, or general authority to equate to holiness. 

 

For me, I make the assumption that if one is a leader, regardless of position, then it indicates willingness to serve. I agree that there is also an assumption that there is a minimum level of obedience to the teachings of the Church, but holiness is never assumed and it should not be. Holiness is demonstrated.

[Tacenda]

I find the perception/claim that LDS idolize JS or BY to border on gross exaggeration and generalization. If anything the common LDS has difficulty defining when the prophet is acting as the prophet and when is he acting as a man. This is compounded by the fact that we quite often assume that a calling, even that of prophet, apostle, or general authority to equate to holiness.

For me, I make the assumption that if one is a leader, regardless of position, then it indicates willingness to serve. I agree that there is also an assumption that there is a minimum level of obedience to the teachings of the Church, but holiness is never assumed and it should not be. Holiness is demonstrated.

I recently read a side by side list showing JS and JC's similarities according to members in the not so early days of the church. I will add it here when I'm at my computer.

 

ETA:  I don't have a reference for the side by side yet.  It was on a show I watched...the side by side was from the "Weber Stake Ward Teacher" lesson for January, 1922.  "A Parallel".  I will provide the side by side when I get the exact reference.  Until then, here are some quotes from leaders that seem like they idolize JS.

 

"You call us fools; but the day will be, gentlemen and ladies, whether you belong to this church or not, when you will prize brother Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Living God, and look upon him as a God, and also upon Brigham Young, our Governor."   Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol. 5, pg. 88.

 

And more recent...

 

"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith"  Apostle George Q. Cannon, Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, 1988, p. 142

 

ETA again:

 

~WEBER STAKE WARD TEACHERS’ LESSON.

           Lesson for January, 1922.

               A PARALLEL.

 

Jesus the Redeemer. Joseph Smith the Prophet.

The Advent of Christ. The Advent of Joseph Smith.

 

   At the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, the national religion which had satisfied the parents, no longer proves satisfactory to the children.

   At the time of the birth of Joseph Smith the world was convulsed with religious discord, and the people were not satisfied with the teaching offered by the churches.

 

The parents of Jesus were of humble origin.

The parents of Joseph were of humble origin.

 

   The voice of God proclaimed the Christ at his baptism, saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”

   The voice of God spake unto Joseph Smith, sayings, “This is my beloved Son - hear him.”

 

Christ presented himself for baptism, and he was baptized by John the Baptist in the river Jordan.

John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and conferred the Aaronic Priesthood upon him, and by the authority of that Priesthood He was baptized.

 

   Christ demonstrated the power of the priesthood by healing the sick, etc., and he bestowed this power upon his disciples.

   Joseph Smith by the power of the Priesthood healed the sick and he conferred this priesthood and power upon his disciples.

 

Christ was persecuted and the message that He gave to the people was rejected.

Joseph Smith was persecuted and the message that he was sent to deliver to the people was rejected.

 

   Christ sealed his testimony with his blood on Calvary.

   Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood at Carthage, Ill.

 

WHO SHALL DOUBT THE DIVINE MISSION OF THESE SAVIOURS OF MANKIND? God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform; He plants his footsteps in the sea, And rides upon the storm.   ~ 

 

 

 

A 1922 religious lesson plan that reveals the level of Mormon adoration for Joseph Smith, who has been elevated by his followers to a near god-like status, often in comparison to Jesus Christ (from Weber Stake Ward, 1922, reprinted in “News of Mormonism,” Light On Mormonism, September 1922, vol. 1, no. 2,5, published by The Utah Gospel Mission of Cleveland, Ohio).

COPIED FROM “ONE NATION UNDER GODS” PAGE 177

Edited November 6, 2013 by Tacenda

[Stone holm]

I find the perception/claim that LDS idolize JS or BY to border on gross exaggeration and generalization. If anything the common LDS has difficulty defining when the prophet is acting as the prophet and when is he acting as a man. This is compounded by the fact that we quite often assume that a calling, even that of prophet, apostle, or general authority to equate to holiness. 

 

For me, I make the assumption that if one is a leader, regardless of position, then it indicates willingness to serve. I agree that there is also an assumption that there is a minimum level of obedience to the teachings of the Church, but holiness is never assumed and it should not be. Holiness is demonstrated.

IMHO while we do not treat Prophets as gods, we do ascribe to them a righteousness status above the common member. With regards to JS that ascribed status projects him almost to a godlike status.

[CV75]

Does this admittance of Mistakes fall short due to the reluctance to be specific on what mistakes have been made?

 

Not when the operative principles of truth are involved. Three principles off the top of my head: 1) all are fallible; 2) no one can "tell you all the things whereby ye may commit [mistakes]; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them;” and 3) the “light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.”

 

So delving into multitudes of specifics of mistakes (real or perceived) does not facilitate our comprehension of the greater light that has been shining through them all along.

[Calm]

No he didn't.

In what way do you disagree with the quote?

[Bob Crockett]

I'm glad to find that you have jettisoned the nonsense.  You should.  Why?  Because none of the items you list as "nonsense" were or are LDS doctrine, and I would hazard the guess that your hundred other items are likewise non-doctrinal.  You claim here that most Mormons believe that kind of claptrap, but you don't bother to provide us with polling evidence or academic journal articles which would back up your claim.  You yourself admit that you began with "a very black and white way of seeing things," and only later realized that it was wrong.  In my experience there are plenty of Mormons who believe that folklore is identical with doctrine, and that will continue to be a problem for some people.  I have also noticed that rigid, brittle, black & white believers are the first to crumble when the truth is pointed out to them.

Read Mike Ash, The Shaken Faith Syndrome, 2nd ed. (2013).

i'm glad somebody is saying such things on this thread.

 

I wonder if the opening poster can identify the top five mistakes he thinks ought to be identified (by whom? by the church?) and what ought to be said about them.  When we talk abou the Church's mistakes it is a whole lot more valuable to talk about specific examples rather than in vague hypotheticals.  I realize talking about vague hypotheticals distances one from being directly critical but I don't learn much from that exercise.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[T-Shirt]

In what way do you disagree with the quote?

I was wondering the same thing. Edited November 6, 2013 by T-Shirt

[SeattleGrunge]

I'm interested in following this.  I've posed this question myself in a few places and never gotten a very concise answer.

 

So, after five pages, still no good list of problems?  I know they are out there.  I can't believe nobody has ever made one, anywhere.  I have a list of a couple...

 

• Section 46: church was limiting people that could attend sacrament meeting, had to be overturned by revelation from God
• When asked about the “LDS view of women,” Elder Holland said, “This church probably needs to do better...We need to ask ourselves how to make our actions follow our sermons.  I think that's a task that is still ahead of all of us.” 
• Obvious Blacks in Priesthood error...“Shall I tell you the LAW OF GOD in regard to the AFRICAN race? If the WHITE MAN who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is DEATH ON THE SPOT. This will ALWAYS be so.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.110, 1863
• Church stance against marrying someone from another race
• Church stance change in position on women's rights (couldn't pray in sacrament meeting, couldn't pray in conference, couldn't go to temple w/o having a temple recommend holding husband who gave permision when men didn't have to have that) and contraception.
• JSF saying that the version of the temple endowment we had in 1920 (not sure of time) was the EXACT same version as was given to JS
• Church changing its doctrine/stance that gay people are not born gay to saying that they are

 

Someone PM me when the back and forth bickering on the plausability of errors is over and an actual list gets made :-)

[Hamba Tuhan]

Church changing its doctrine/stance that gay people are not born gay to saying that they are.

 

CFR that the Church stance is that people are 'born gay'.

[DBMormon]

i'm glad somebody is saying such things on this thread.

 

I wonder if the opening poster can identify the top five mistakes he thinks ought to be identified (by whom? by the church?) and what ought to be said about them.  When we talk abou the Church's mistakes it is a whole lot more valuable to talk about specific examples rather than in vague hypotheticals.  I realize talking about vague hypotheticals distances one from being directly critical but I don't learn much from that exercise.

 

Not sure these are top five but these are perceived by me as mistakes that need addressed

 

1.) Most members believe and many leaders have taught that Tithing to be a real tithe must be paid on gross.  First presidency staements shows this as incorrect yet leaders and members (at least in US) seem to impose a gross definition as the correct one

 

2.) Not giving Blacks the Priesthood seems to be understood now as a mistake/bad policy and yet we seem unable to officially say as much

 

3.) "Mormon Doctrine" the book is not mormon doctrine and while many things in the book are correct much of it is not.

 

4.) While leaders have imposed their opinions as Doctrine on science issues like age of the earth and evolution, the Church actually has no official position on these.  While a deep reader can discover this, the average member holds to these non-doctrinal points of view as if they are doctrine.

 

5.) For using Church discipline in the past as a way to discourage members from writing and sharing and exploring troublesome church history that leaders would have preferred be kept out of site and left alone.  

 

6.) To have gone too long being forthright about polyandry (nowhere to be found prior to this year in any source on LDS.ORG)  and too have been a little more forthright in general with factual history so members are not caught by surprise.

 

In some of these the false ideas were announced and taught loudly, but what little of a correction came, came rather quietly.

 

Not sure each of these is a great fit for an formal apology and acknowledgement but these certainly are things that the majority of members in my ward would be unclear on and still believe false ideas that the church in many ways have kept or allowed false ideas and beliefs to continue.

[DBMormon]

So, after five pages, still no good list of problems?  I know they are out there.  I can't believe nobody has ever made one, anywhere.  I have a list of a couple...

 

• Section 46: church was limiting people that could attend sacrament meeting, had to be overturned by revelation from God
• When asked about the “LDS view of women,” Elder Holland said, “This church probably needs to do better...We need to ask ourselves how to make our actions follow our sermons.  I think that's a task that is still ahead of all of us.” 
• Obvious Blacks in Priesthood error...“Shall I tell you the LAW OF GOD in regard to the AFRICAN race? If the WHITE MAN who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is DEATH ON THE SPOT. This will ALWAYS be so.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.110, 1863
• Church stance against marrying someone from another race
• Church stance change in position on women's rights (couldn't pray in sacrament meeting, couldn't pray in conference, couldn't go to temple w/o having a temple recommend holding husband who gave permision when men didn't have to have that) and contraception.
• JSF saying that the version of the temple endowment we had in 1920 (not sure of time) was the EXACT same version as was given to JS
• Church changing its doctrine/stance that gay people are not born gay to saying that they are

 

Someone PM me when the back and forth bickering on the plausability of errors is over and an actual list gets made :-)

These are good ones too.

[theplains]

• Church changing its doctrine/stance that gay people are not born gay to saying that they are

 

Do you have a reference for that?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[theplains]

3.) "Mormon Doctrine" the book is not mormon doctrine and while many things in the book are correct much of it is not.

 

What wrong things taught in Mormon Doctrine have led Mormons astray?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Scott Lloyd]

Not sure these are top five but these are perceived by me as mistakes that need addressed

 

2.) Not giving Blacks the Priesthood seems to be understood now as a mistake/bad policy and yet we seem unable to officially say as much

 

If that's what you understand, then you've reached a conclusion that God Himself has never affirmed through prophets and apostles, past or present.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[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.

 

Been thinking about the above remark.

 

To the extent that past leaders of the Church taught things about this subject that were not sustained by divinely given knowledge, they erred. To his credit, Elder McConkie admitted as much in the end.

 

Among today's high Church leaders, I see wisdom gained from past experience such as this, a disinclination to teach conjecture or extrapolation that is not sustained by the revealed word of God. To candidly say, "I don't know" or "The answer to that has not been revealed," reflects that wisdom.It should be respected, not disparaged.

 

It would be a shame if rank-and-file Church members, be they presumptuous pundits or over-eager members of rising generations, would fail to heed that lesson in that they engage in what the Brethren today refuse to do.

[SeattleGrunge]

CFR that the Church stance is that people are 'born gay'.

 

Where the Church stands:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. - http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

 

 

Senior Church leaders in this website represent the official position of the Church. -http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

 

 

[DBMormon]

What wrong things taught in Mormon Doctrine have led Mormons astray?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

The book as a whole set up some opinions as doctrine that when members discover their "truth" doesn't mesh with certain claims of the book, they feel the Church must not be true if they have to believe X,Y, & Z.  Until they feel they are free to discard many of the book's claims there cen be unneeded tension between what they believe and what they think they are being asked to believe.

Edited November 6, 2013 by DBMormon

[Calm]

I don't believe that saying someone doesn't choose to be gay is the same thing as saying they were born gay since there still exists the possibility that something in their experience molded that part of their personality.

[SeattleGrunge]

I don't believe that saying someone doesn't choose to be gay is the same thing as saying they were born gay since there still exists the possibility that something in their experience molded that part of their personality.

 

I'll give you that.  I could reword that to say that the church has changed its stance on gay thoughts/desires being sin.