False Doctrine At Conference

[cinepro]

This thread carries the title "False Doctrine at Conference." Does Canard reject that characterization with regard to Elder Bednar? I've not seen an indication that he does.

 

Moreover, Canard seems to harbor a double standard as pertaining to Church leaders who hold sincere but inaccurate conceptions as compared to others who do so. Again, this appears to impose a standard of infallibility upon Church leaders that one would expect frequent critics such as Canard to reject.

 

 

I think we can all agree that even if Jesus wasn't born on April 6, Elder Bednar isn't guilty of Amasa-Lyman level "false doctrine".  

[Scott Lloyd]

I think we can all agree that even if Jesus wasn't born on April 6, Elder Bednar isn't guilty of Amasa-Lyman level "false doctrine".  

Yeah. You could hardly get more fundamentally contradictory to the message and mission of the Church than poor Elder Lyman was on that occasion.

 

As I recall, his mental health was in question.

[canard78]

Do you or do you not hold apostles and prophets to a standard of infallibility?

And if not, why are you so judgmental toward Elder Bednar for continuing to hold a view and understanding that presumably most faithful Latter-day Saints -- including at least a few presidents of the Church -- have held for generations?

I do not.

I'm not being unkind or judgemental. I'm simply asking the question and wanting to explore the manner in which a prophet and apostle declares something to be known by revelation.

As I repeatedly state, I don't actually care what the birth date was. I care about the manner in which prophets declare revalation and on what they base that.

I don't look to poets for the revealed word of God. I have, however, been taught to look to prophets for such. Is there not a difference between the words of poets and the words of prophets.

Given I do believe in their fallibility and given I think the evidence is stronger against D&C 20 than in favour of it I'm simply using this as an interesting case study.

It means that the extent of their fallibility can be considered. Not as an opportunity to deride and criticise them but as a way of helping me frame everything they say in the context of fallibility.

It means that even when something is stated by a prophet in conference and even when it is based on scripture it might still be incorrect or inaccurate.

If this is the case it has far reaching implications for other things taught in a similar manner.

[canard78]

I'm using the term charitable to convey sense #2 of this online dictionary definition.

"2. Mild or tolerant in judging others; lenient."

I'm sorry if you take offense at it. But I think it fits very well in this instance.

Scholars speak quite frequently of a "charitable reading" of this or that phrase or discourse. It's really a rather common application of that adjective. See this Wikipedia discussion about the principle of charity in philosophy and rhetoric.

Your use in that definition would still imply that I'm being intolerant in my judgement. I'd still call that a mischaracterisation of my point.

I don't consider this to be a question of being intolerant. I'm not being such.

I'm simply trying ask the question about what it means when a prophet states, in conference, that he knows something by revelation.

[canard78]

So Canard does hold apostles/prophets to an infallibility standard then.

But today (as opposed to back on April 8 ) he seems very exercised about it. As though it is something very egregious that an apostle would hold a view that was extremely prevalent among the Latter-day Saints for many generations and would express that traditionally held view.

Wow, impressive way to put words in my mouth.

No, I wouldn't use the phrase "false doctrine" given the Mormon implication of what it means to teach as much.

Perhaps DB hadn't fully considered the Mormon cultural implications of calling it "false doctrine." Perhaps you could be a little more... charitable... in your reading of his OP. I'll try to avoid speaking for him, but perhaps he wouldn't have used that phrase if he was fully aware of how others felt about that phrase. If he's still reading this thread maybe he can offer his own clarification.

[canard78]

This might be relevant to your conversation with Canard if Canard had ever accused Elder Bednar of teaching "false doctrine." But he hasn't so it's not.

Thanks

[canard78]

This thread carries the title "False Doctrine at Conference." Does Canard reject that characterization with regard to Elder Bednar? I've not seen an indication that he does.

Moreover, Canard seems to harbor a double standard as pertaining to Church leaders who hold sincere but inaccurate conceptions as compared to others who do so. Again, this appears to impose a standard of infallibility upon Church leaders that one would expect frequent critics such as Canard to reject.

"Follow the poet, follow the poet, follow the poet, he knows the way.

Follow the poet, follow the poet, follow the poet, don't go astray."

Even though we both agree to the fallibility of both poets and prophets, I think you would not hold a poet to the same standard as a prophet.

I'm not suggesting that anyone has been "lead astray" by being taught a (potentially) incorrect date of birth.

Instead I've always made this about the more general question of where and in what context a prophet might teach principles that are based on assumptions and not revelation.

If, as it appears to be in this insignificant instance, it can be from a conference pulpit and using scriptures and previous prophets as the source, then there are also implications for other principles taught in the same way.

[Stone holm]

"Follow the poet, follow the poet, follow the poet, he knows the way.

Follow the poet, follow the poet, follow the poet, don't go astray."

Even though we both agree to the fallibility of both poets and prophets, I think you would not hold a poet to the same standard as a prophet.

I'm not suggesting that anyone has been "lead astray" by being taught a (potentially) incorrect date of birth.

Instead I've always made this about the more general question of where and in what context a prophet might teach principles that are based on assumptions and not revelation.

If, as it appears to be in this insignificant instance, it can be from a conference pulpit and using scriptures and previous prophets as the source, then there are also implications for other principles taught in the same way.

Ah but there are some on this board who are of the opinion that once a person is sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator any criticism of the same is evil speaking of the Lord's Annointed and to suggest that one erred at Conference is a sin requiring deep and soul wrenching repentance.

[CV75]

If, as it appears to be in this insignificant instance, it can be from a conference pulpit and using scriptures and previous prophets as the source, then there are also implications for other principles taught in the same way.

The challenge I think is to seek after and recognize those principles we personally need to receive and act on now (or remember for the future), while giving the rest their proper place. The Holy Ghost helps us sift through all the things that come our way from our leaders, whether they are revelatory or assumptions.

 

A Church leader may say something based on intellectual assumption, inspired assumption, or assumption of either kind that is later confirmed by revelation (e.g. Alma 40:19-20; 3 Nephi 28:36-37), and yet the Holy Ghost may inspire the hearer to do something of value with it, even if only an exercise in this spiritual sifting, and will certainly help the faithful to not misapply the teaching.

 

So I think a valid challenge to a particular teaching does not hinge on whether the teaching is an assumption or not, but on the actual content of both the principle being taught and the argument against it. Being an assumption is not what invalidates the principle being taught, but the most current promptings (or lack thereof) of the Spirit about the content of the teaching. These promptings come to us individually, and for the Church collectively through her leaders.

 

I think a related challenge is perspective. Despite all the possible/potential/implied/imputed/assumed/sustained/canonized sources of LDS teachings -- God, man, the devil by way of assumptions, inspiration, revelation, scripture, other prophets (and they are all fallible whenever men and the devil are involved) -- finding what is real (Alma 32).

Edited May 28, 2014 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

"Follow the poet, follow the poet, follow the poet, he knows the way.

Follow the poet, follow the poet, follow the poet, don't go astray."

Even though we both agree to the fallibility of both poets and prophets, I think you would not hold a poet to the same standard as a prophet.

I'm not suggesting that anyone has been "lead astray" by being taught a (potentially) incorrect date of birth.

Instead I've always made this about the more general question of where and in what context a prophet might teach principles that are based on assumptions and not revelation.

If, as it appears to be in this insignificant instance, it can be from a conference pulpit and using scriptures and previous prophets as the source, then there are also implications for other principles taught in the same way.

I think no one means to imply that poets are prophets.

The problem as I see it is that all discourse is essentially poetry since words are symbols of experiences, and not things.

As I see it in that sense we all are poets, and that includes prophets.

This thread itself is about as good an example of arguing about semantics and ambiguous meanings as any I have seen. It's poetry, but very bad poetry.

[mfbukowski]

Ah but there are some on this board who are of the opinion that once a person is sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator any criticism of the same is evil speaking of the Lord's Annointed and to suggest that one erred at Conference is a sin requiring deep and soul wrenching repentance.

Of all the 365 days possible for Jesus's birth, I not so dogmatic to be absolutely certain that April 6 is an "error".

Do you have a source proving your position, or is it just irrational dogmatism?

[stemelbow]

Of all the 365 days possible for Jesus's birth, I not so dogmatic to be absolutely certain that April 6 is an "error".

Do you have a source proving your position, or is it just irrational dogmatism?

The "error" talked about is not the day but the claim of revelation to know the day.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow, impressive way to put words in my mouth.

No, I wouldn't use the phrase "false doctrine" given the Mormon implication of what it means to teach as much.

Perhaps DB hadn't fully considered the Mormon cultural implications of calling it "false doctrine." Perhaps you could be a little more... charitable... in your reading of his OP. I'll try to avoid speaking for him, but perhaps he wouldn't have used that phrase if he was fully aware of how others felt about that phrase. If he's still reading this thread maybe he can offer his own clarification.

DBMormon is no neophyte. He has served as a bishop and ought to be fully aware of the implications of the term false doctrine. During his term of service he could conceivably  -- perhaps even did -- have had occasion to convene a disciplinary council for someone committing that very offense. That he blatantly accuses an ordained apostle of it is unconscionable.

[Scott Lloyd]

Even though we both agree to the fallibility of both poets and prophets, I think you would not hold a poet to the same standard as a prophet.

 

I have already addressed this; you seem determined to ignore my response.

 

The hymn I cited was merely an incidental example no doubt reflecting untold numbers of Christians through the centuries who have innocently functioned with the erroneous understanding that Dec. 25 is historically established as the date of Jesus's birth.

 

For most people in the Church for many generations, April 6 has been understood to have been revealed as the date of Jesus' birth. Until very recently there was no compelling reason to question it. For you now to castigate Elder Bednar for expressing that traditional understanding is, well, uncharitable.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[omni]

DBMormon is no neophyte. He has served as a bishop and ought to be fully aware of the implications of the term false doctrine. During his term of service he could conceivably  -- perhaps even did -- have had occasion to convene a disciplinary council for someone committing that very offense. That he blatantly accuses an ordained apostle of it is unconscionable.

 

If I were to teach over the pulpit that through revelation I have learned that Jesus's birthday was June 1st, would I be teaching false doctrine?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

DBMormon is no neophyte. He has served as a bishop and ought to be fully aware of the implications of the term false doctrine. During his term of service he could conceivably  -- perhaps even did -- have had occasion to convene a disciplinary council for someone committing that very offense. That he blatantly accuses an ordained apostle of it is unconscionable.

 

For someone who advocates charity, you seem remarkably uncharitable with those you disagree with.

[Scott Lloyd]

If I were to teach over the pulpit that through revelation I have learned that Jesus's birthday was June 1st, would I be teaching false doctrine?

Scarcely applicable to the question at hand.

 

To make it so, you would have to suppose for the sake of argument that such a thing had been widely taught in the Church, and widely understood as true, for many generations, by presidents of the Church among others. In that case, no, I think it would hardly approach the offense of false doctrine.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

For someone who advocates charity, you seem remarkably uncharitable with those you disagree with.

In this case, I'm agreeing with you that "the thread title is worded poorly and that the thread opened with an adversarial tone not conducive to good discussion."

 

That said, if DBMormon were to acknowledge that he used reckless and inflammatory rhetoric in this instance and concede that it was a misstep, I would readily acknowledge such contrition and pardon him for it.

 

But he has not. In fact, he doubled down on it when I brought it up earlier.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

The "error" talked about is not the day but the claim of revelation to know the day.

It could well be that he’s using “We know by revelation...” in the same sense as “We believe...” We’ve all seen how the two words can be used in place of each other when speaking of spiritual things. And D&C 20 technically qualifies as a revelation.

 

Also, it is often the case that we know things by means of revelation that contradict knowledge or common sense that are ascertained by other means. So for someone to point out that another’s belief is not from revelation, without receiving a revelation on the matter himself, only presents a credentials issue.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

In this case, I'm agreeing with you that "the thread title is worded poorly and that the thread opened with an adversarial tone not conducive to good discussion."

No you go well beyond that. In addition to those sentiments, you cast judgement on DBMormon and declare his actions "unconscionable." This is simply not charitable at all.

 

In this thread I have stated concern that Elder Bednar declared that he knew something by revelation that was apparently based on faulty assumptions. By your logic that is the same as saying:

 

"Elder Bednar is no neophyte. He has served as an apostle / prophet and ought to be fully aware of the implications of the term 'know by revelation'. During his term of service he could conceivably  have had occasion to convene a disciplinary council for someone that claimed to know things by revelation that were false. That he blatantly uses such terms in general conference incorrectly is unconscionable."

[Scott Lloyd]

No you go well beyond that. In addition to those sentiments, you cast judgement on DBMormon and declare his actions "unconscionable." This is simply not charitable at all.

 

In this thread I have stated concern that Elder Bednar declared that he knew something by revelation that was apparently based on faulty assumptions. By your logic that is the same as saying:

 

"Elder Bednar is no neophyte. He has served as an apostle / prophet and ought to be fully aware of the implications of the term 'know by revelation'. During his term of service he could conceivably  have had occasion to convene a disciplinary council for someone that claimed to know things by revelation that were false. That he blatantly uses such terms in general conference incorrectly is unconscionable."

Elder Bednar did not cast aspersions on the character of anyone by accusing him of an offense potentially punishable by excommunication.

 

Did you see my edit on the post to which you are responding, where I said I would readily accept an acknowledgment of error?

[stemelbow]

It could well be that he’s using “We know by revelation...” in the same sense as “We believe...” We’ve all seen how the two words can be used in place of each other when speaking of spiritual things. And D&C 20 technically qualifies as a revelation.

 

Also, it is often the case that we know things by means of revelation that contradict knowledge or common sense that are ascertained by other means. So for someone to point out that another’s belief is not from revelation, without receiving a revelation on the matter himself, only presents a credentials issue.

I'd say it's already been well pointed out that the statement, "we know by revelation..." isn't referring to personal revelation by Elder Bednar but is alluding to something the audience is most likely familiar with. If that be the case it appears, from all available evidence, that Elder Bednar is alluding to something that we know was mistaken characterized as revelation. We all make mistakes, or suggest we know things when in fact we don't. That's the issue at hand, it seems. At times, we've had our dear leaders, as well-intentioned as they are, claim to know things they perhaps don't know. It's easy to be dogmatic about religious matters and claim knowledge when knowledge is not had. As I listen to people in my ward speak each week and during the week in other conversations I'm astounded how often we all tend to do this. its not wonder our own apostles tend to do it as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

It could well be that he’s using “We know by revelation...” in the same sense as “We believe...” We’ve all seen how the two words can be used in place of each other when speaking of spiritual things. And D&C 20 technically qualifies as a revelation.

 

Also, it is often the case that we know things by means of revelation that contradict knowledge or common sense that are ascertained by other means. So for someone to point out that another’s belief is not from revelation, without receiving a revelation on the matter himself, only presents a credentials issue.

Something occurred to me this morning when thinking about this:

 

Whether or not the April 6 date was initially included as a header to the revelation, it has long been part of the scriptural canon and authoritatively interpreted to be a designation of the date of Christ's birth. That may be a reason why the Brethren ostensibly continue to regard it as having been given by revelation. It is also a reason why I am withholding judgment on the matter until I hear more from the Church leaders about it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Elder Bednar did not cast aspersions on the character of anyone by accusing him of an offense potentially punishable by excommunication.

 

Did you see my edit on the post to which you are responding, where I said I would readily accept an acknowledgment of error?

So it is your sincere belief that DBMormon was accusing Elder Bednar of an offense punishable by excommunication. Really? DBMormon just uses the term "false doctrine" in a different sense than you. While you read him in a very inflammatory manner, that is clearly not his intent:

 

I agree that Elder Bednar made an innocent mistake.  That said any time we teach that we have a truth from God that was never given by god, that supposed truth is false doctrine.  True Doctrine is that which God himself gives to man.  False Doctrine is a teaching that is claimed to have been given by God but has not been.  It is false Doctrine because it is false to claim God delivered truth XYZ and in reality he didn't.  I am not saying Elder Bednar knowingly taught something he knew was false.

 

My bigger issue is the fact that The ensign chose rather then to insert a footnote acknowledging the issue (And by the way I know directly that the Church was aware of the issue and discussed how to address it), they instead chose to entrench by defending the view with four sources which are also a reiteration of claiming revealed truth when it wasn't revealed.  Rather than acknowledge the issue and correct course, we instead chose to lift up such nonsense and treat it as a fact.

 

So you view statements such as "I agree that Elder Bednar made an innocent mistake" and "I am not saying Elder Bednar knowingly taught something he knew was false" as "cast[ing] aspersions on the character of anyone by accusing him of an offense potentially punishable by excommunication." yet take other posters to task for their lack of charity. I guess I just don't get it. Sorry.

[Scott Lloyd]

So it is your sincere belief that DBMormon was accusing Elder Bednar of an offense punishable by excommunication. Really? DBMormon just uses the term "false doctrine" in a different sense than you. While you read him in a very inflammatory manner, that is clearly not his intent:

 

 

So you view statements such as "I agree that Elder Bednar made an innocent mistake" and "I am not saying Elder Bednar knowingly taught something he knew was false" as "cast[ing] aspersions on the character of anyone by accusing him of an offense potentially punishable by excommunication." yet take other posters to task for their lack of charity. I guess I just don't get it. Sorry.

I've not taken time to read through the entire thread.

 

I do know that, for going on two months now, there has been a headline on page 1 of this forum that veritably screams "FALSE DOCTRINE AT CONFERENCE." And when one clicks on the opening post for an explanation, one finds scarcely anything other than a reference to and contradiction of a statement in  Elder Bednar's conference address.

 

If DBMormon now believes the thread title with its accompanying OP overstates his point, let him acknowledge that.

 

But DBMormon seems to have a pattern of making sensationalistic assertions that turn out to be more bluster than substance -- and then doubling down on them -- as when he claims Joseph Smith had "serious character flaws."

Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd