False Doctrine At Conference

[DBMormon]

I find that almost all of us at one time another would really prefer to live under the law of Moses where all things were directed; no thought was necessary; just follow the rules. It is much harder to live the New Covenant that Christ taught us.  Joseph and Brigham both made it clear that we individually have a responsibility to follow the Spirit and that the leaders of the church were not nearly as perfect and righteous as the membership wants to make them.  

 

We continue to push these fellows into very narrow parameters that are just not acceptable from their very human viewpoint.  I would also say that some of the leaders begin to breathe their own ether too much.  

 

The leadership self-corrects and they do not need a bunch of members running around telling them when they made an error, when they misspoke, when they are imperfect.  

 

If a teaching has not be presented before the membership to accept as doctrine and added to the Standard Works then it is not doctrine, regardless of how much some want some teaching to be doctrine.  

 

These tempests in a teapot are not helpful to anyone. 

I would agree IF (really big if) the brethren made it clear that we are welcome to toss aside that which they speak which is not true and if they were willing to let the general church know when an error has been made.

 

The brethren may self correct but IT FEELS as though they do not let the membership know that they did so on some occasions and members continue to repeat false assumptions without ever being corrected on many issues (Tithing is gross only, race issues for years, april 6th)  We also get many mixed messages (blind obedience, soda pop, are indians lamanites, etc..).  We emphasize following the prophet and we have talks on blind obedience being faith obedience and and we send mixed messages at times.  for instance rather than acknowledge an issue with the april 6th they defended it with 4-5 sources in the ensign.  That doesn't leave much room for the average member to feel empowered to let the false assumption go.

Edited July 13, 2014 by DBMormon

[Storm Rider]

I would agree IF (really big if) the brethren made it clear that we are welcome to toss aside that which they speak which is not true and if they were willing to let the general church know when an error has been made.

 

The brethren may self correct but they do not let the membership know that they did so and members continue to repeat false assumptions without ever being corrected on many issues.  We emphasize following the prophet and we have talks on blind obedience being faith obedience and and we send mixed messages at times.  for instance rather than acknowledge an issue with the april 6th they defended it with 4-5 sources in the ensign.  That doesn't leave much room for the average member to feel empowered to let the false assumption go.

 

DB, there was a time when temple presidencies would talk in-depth about the temple to patrons.  However, that stopped for a reason and now they are much more careful about sharing their own views and the truths that they have learned.  It may be that we could set up a Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith similar to Catholics.  The purpose would be for this group to know perfectly the true doctrine and correct every error that was said, indicated, emphasized, or insinuated.  In this way no member would ever be mislead and no soul would ever be lost to a misunderstanding of the faith and the doctrine of the Church.  Consequently, no single member would really need to stretch to know the truth because they could count on the Congregation of the Faith to dictate the truth to them.  

 

What is the objective of this life?  Is it to be spoon fed or to expand and grow independently?  Is it striving to learn spiritual truths, gain testimonies, and to grow in our relationship with God or is it something no nearly as demanding?

[Tacenda]

DB, there was a time when temple presidencies would talk in-depth about the temple to patrons. However, that stopped for a reason and now they are much more careful about sharing their own views and the truths that they have learned. It may be that we could set up a Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith similar to Catholics. The purpose would be for this group to know perfectly the true doctrine and correct every error that was said, indicated, emphasized, or insinuated. In this way no member would ever be mislead and no soul would ever be lost to a misunderstanding of the faith and the doctrine of the Church. Consequently, no single member would really need to stretch to know the truth because they could count on the Congregation of the Faith to dictate the truth to them.

What is the objective of this life? Is it to be spoon fed or to expand and grow independently? Is it striving to learn spiritual truths, gain testimonies, and to grow in our relationship with God or is it something no nearly as demanding?

Why do you coddle these mistakes and say they're a way for people to grow? If the church went full on with correlation does that help people to "grow"? The leaders just don't know how to say sorry and move on, imo.

Maybe it's our faults for making them to be more than mortals. If they didn't think they had to represent for God all the time, maybe they could admit that they get it wrong, like Pres. Uchtdorf did. But he was talking about past leaders not present leaders such as Elder Bednar who got it wrong.

Never correct a current leader just the past one. And never actually say they got it wrong, just go clear around that fact.

[Storm Rider]

Why do you coddle these mistakes and say they're a way for people to grow? If the church went full on with correlation does that help people to "grow"? The leaders just don't know how to say sorry and move on, imo.

Maybe it's our faults for making them to be more than mortals. If they didn't think they had to represent for God all the time, maybe they could admit that they get it wrong, like Pres. Uchtdorf did. But he was talking about past leaders not present leaders such as Elder Bednar who got it wrong.

Never correct a current leader just the past one. And never actually say they got it wrong, just go clear around that fact.

 

Tacenda, I think you have read enough comments from me to know that I do not coddle them for their own mistakes.  I don't suffer foolish lightly or easily.  

 

My objective with these current posts is how we might best handle the mistakes of the leadership.  What is the best correction?  I have no control over what the leadership does; I have complete control over my own actions and choices.  If I thought it was healthy to constantly point an accusing finger at others for their own shortcomings, I would state that is the best way to go.  However, I don't think it is.  If we can frame the conversation in how best to handle it personally, then we have a easier time of being happy.

 

If we are going to create a standard for the leadership are we just as prepared to live by that same standard?  I for one do not want to live my life constantly saying I am sorry every time I doing something that is perceived wrong by myself or others.  I have the impression that is what life was like under the law of Moses.  I am just grateful that I live in a time where I am not commanded in all things and can struggle to find and follow the Spirit of the law by myself.  

Edited July 13, 2014 by Storm Rider

[UtahTexan]

This has always been a question I have had trouble with.....if the leaders, when preaching doctrine or beliefs, can be wrong, how can we ever truly trust what they say on doctrinal issues?

 

It seems that this only leads to confusion and doubt.

 

How do we deal with this?

[Storm Rider]

This has always been a question I have had trouble with.....if the leaders, when preaching doctrine or beliefs, can be wrong, how can we ever truly trust what they say on doctrinal issues?

 

It seems that this only leads to confusion and doubt.

 

How do we deal with this?

 

I don't view the leadership as the source of truth.  They can prophesy, but always the fount of all truth is the Holy Spirit.  For me there is no confusion; I never confuse a leadership position with being holy or being right.  I view a leadership person as an administrative position first and foremost.  

 

There was a time when leaders fell off the pedestal and that was when I learned they were just guys that put their pants on the same way I do every day.  I know when I see holiness; I feel righteousness.  I know when I hear truth and it is because of the Holy Spirit not a man or woman.  

[JLHPROF]

This has always been a question I have had trouble with.....if the leaders, when preaching doctrine or beliefs, can be wrong, how can we ever truly trust what they say on doctrinal issues?

 

It seems that this only leads to confusion and doubt.

 

How do we deal with this?

 

We come to our own conclusions through study, prayer and the spirit.  When our leaders speak truth if we have the spirit we will know it.  When they make an error in doctrine, we are likewise responsible to find out for ourselves.

 

The real question is how do we respond if we decide our leaders are wrong in a doctrine?  Do we pretend like we agree?  Do we keep it to ourselves?  Do we cause dissent and weaken faith by telling everyone we know?  Do we apostatize?  Do we pray that we will come to understand it as they do?  Do we pray that they will correct their error?  The options are endless, but it is how we handle the discrepancy that matters more than the doctrinal error.

[UtahTexan]

We come to our own conclusions through study, prayer and the spirit.  When our leaders speak truth if we have the spirit we will know it.  When they make an error in doctrine, we are likewise responsible to find out for ourselves.

 

The real question is how do we respond if we decide our leaders are wrong in a doctrine?  Do we pretend like we agree?  Do we keep it to ourselves?  Do we cause dissent and weaken faith by telling everyone we know?  Do we apostatize?  Do we pray that we will come to understand it as they do?  Do we pray that they will correct their error?  The options are endless, but it is how we handle the discrepancy that matters more than the doctrinal error.

 

ok...but lets say a leader says something.  And so we, as members, pray about what he taught.  And lets say 10 of us have 10 different answers that we perceive as being from God.

 

Who is right?  and doesn;t that lead to even more confusion?

 

Thank you for discussing this with me

[JLHPROF]

ok...but lets say a leader says something.  And so we, as members, pray about what he taught.  And lets say 10 of us have 10 different answers that we perceive as being from God.

 

Who is right?  and doesn;t that lead to even more confusion?

 

Thank you for discussing this with me

 

Well there are literally 100 breakoff branches from the Mormon religion, so yes, it does lead to more confusion.  So it comes back to the spirit.  How do know ANY religion is true?  How did we decide Mormonism and Church the leader belongs to were true in the first place?

I don't believe God gives 10 different answers to the same doctrinal question, because God cannot lie.  So perhaps the issue is in our capability to recognize God's answers.

And there are dozens of scriptures and prophetic teachings on how to recognize truth.  We're just not very good at doing it over our mortality.

[UtahTexan]

Well there are literally 100 breakoff branches from the Mormon religion, so yes, it does lead to more confusion.  So it comes back to the spirit.  How do know ANY religion is true?  How did we decide Mormonism and Church the leader belongs to were true in the first place?

I don't believe God gives 10 different answers to the same doctrinal question, because God cannot lie.  So perhaps the issue is in our capability to recognize God's answers.

And there are dozens of scriptures and prophetic teachings on how to recognize truth.  We're just not very good at doing it over our mortality.

 

That Answer makes more sense than anything I have ever heard.  Thank you so much!  

[Tacenda]

We come to our own conclusions through study, prayer and the spirit.  When our leaders speak truth if we have the spirit we will know it.  When they make an error in doctrine, we are likewise responsible to find out for ourselves.

 

The real question is how do we respond if we decide our leaders are wrong in a doctrine?  Do we pretend like we agree?  Do we keep it to ourselves?  Do we cause dissent and weaken faith by telling everyone we know?  Do we apostatize?  Do we pray that we will come to understand it as they do?  Do we pray that they will correct their error?  The options are endless, but it is how we handle the discrepancy that matters more than the doctrinal error.

Even when it's in the church handbook?  Do we question, excuse me, I mean do we wonder if it's correct?  Many things in it have completely been discarded.  Say for instance on women and children.  It at one time was in the handbook that women shouldn't use birth control, but let the Lord decide how many children the woman should have.  I guess the leaders saw that some women were having babies every year and it was taking it's toll on the women's bodies and their families.  The church has stepped away from that handbook rule of thumb.    

[Thinking]

I view a leadership person as an administrative position first and foremost.

 

I wonder how many faithful LDS agree with this statement.

[thesometimesaint]

I wonder how many faithful LDS agree with this statement.

 

Depends on how administrative is defined and used.

[mfbukowski]

Why do you coddle these mistakes and say they're a way for people to grow? If the church went full on with correlation does that help people to "grow"? The leaders just don't know how to say sorry and move on, imo.

Maybe it's our faults for making them to be more than mortals. If they didn't think they had to represent for God all the time, maybe they could admit that they get it wrong, like Pres. Uchtdorf did. But he was talking about past leaders not present leaders such as Elder Bednar who got it wrong.

Never correct a current leader just the past one. And never actually say they got it wrong, just go clear around that fact.

This church is not about teaching facts- it is about BECOMING something more than you are.

 

If you don't figure out the answers for yourself- 1- you will not grow and 2- you will not learn to follow the voice of the spirit to learn to become more than you are.

 

It is giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish.

 

If you want to be on a spiritual "welfare" plan you will never learn to fend for yourself in spiritual matters.  And it is not as if you will not learn it yourself eventually.  We have all eternity to learn this stuff- those who learn it here and now will just be ahead of those who do not.

 

I would prefer to be at the head of the class if I had a choice and earn my own A instead of settling for a C+.

[mfbukowski]

This has always been a question I have had trouble with.....if the leaders, when preaching doctrine or beliefs, can be wrong, how can we ever truly trust what they say on doctrinal issues?

 

It seems that this only leads to confusion and doubt.

 

How do we deal with this?

 

We must learn to trust your own revelations.  Do not accept anything unless it feels "right" to you.  We are not here to be blindly obedient to principles we do not feel comfortable with.

 

I am not ever going to drink the kool aid.  Follow your own conscience.

[ksfisher]

We must learn to trust your own revelations.  Do not accept anything unless it feels "right" to you.  We are not here to be blindly obedient to principles we do not feel comfortable with.

 

I am not ever going to drink the kool aid.  Follow your own conscience.

Elder Oaks teaches us about the importance of both personal and priesthood revelation:

"We must use both the personal line and the priesthood line in proper balance to achieve the growth that is the purpose of mortal life. If personal religious practice relies too much on the personal line, individualism erases the importance of divine authority. If personal religious practice relies too much on the priesthood line, individual growth suffers. The children of God need both lines to achieve their eternal destiny. The restored gospel teaches both, and the restored Church provides both."

Two Lines of Communication

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

ok...but lets say a leader says something.  And so we, as members, pray about what he taught.  And lets say 10 of us have 10 different answers that we perceive as being from God.

 

Who is right?  and doesn;t that lead to even more confusion?

 

Thank you for discussing this with me

God leads us individually in our own individual way- so it is no surprise we each get customized answers.  There is no standard curriculum in becoming like Christ.

 

If you are a drunk on skid row, could God give you a genuine testimony to find the only available ministry- perhaps the Salvation Army- to get you on the road to Christ?

 

I don't doubt it.

 

If history and tradition were incredibly important to you and you treasured these things, might God direct you to follow Catholicism?

 

I am sure.

 

What if you were raised to take the Bible literally and cannot see it otherwise, and do not even question that the Bible IS the directly spoken "Word of God" might an Evangelical church get you closer to Christ?

 

Of course.

 

If you were a worshiper of trees and stones, and Muslims taught you that there was One God and got you on the path in that direction, could God lead you to follow that way?

 

Sure!

 

If personal revelation was of key importance to you, would you perhaps find Mormonism?

 

That's why I am here.

 

We also have to remember that we believe that all these opinions have at least SOME "truth", and that each incremental step we take approaching Christ is a move forward, but for us, eventually we believe that in the eternities "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ".

 

What is unique about Mormons is that we have a point of view that can accommodate disagreement about religion in this way- and no one else does.

 

When we forget these things, we end up posting on boards like these and worrying about having a different testimony than other "genuine testimonies" as if there is really some importance in having everyone agree with OUR WAY and agree RIGHT NOW.

 

There is no such urgency.

 

Give it an eternity or so and don't worry- we will all be on the same page!

Edited July 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[JAHS]

I can't think of any General Authority that has been wrong about something that if I believed what he said would put my eternal life in jeopardy. I am willing to let them be human and make a few of what I might call mistakes, but still generally follow and heed the counsel they continue to give me, confident that they will not lead me astray. 

[strappinglad]

Country boy's statement spoke of 10 MEMBERS getting 10 different answers about a leader's statement. That is a bit different than 10 random people from 10 different circumstances. I can agree with mfb about the Spirit witnessing according to your ability to respond. However, as members the nuances would have to be much more subtle.

Years ago my father was in a priesthood meeting in which the Stake President told the members to go and dedicate their crops to the Lord. Of the 100 or so men there I have no idea how many prayed about it but my dad took the SP seriously and went into his field and dedicated it to the Lord. A few days later a hail storm flattened the crops on all 4 sides of our land and took a small corner of ours. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. That time my father got a strong lesson about obedience to the Lord's anointed. Others may have needed a different lesson .

[mfbukowski]

Country boy's statement spoke of 10 MEMBERS getting 10 different answers about a leader's statement. That is a bit different than 10 random people from 10 different circumstances. I can agree with mfb about the Spirit witnessing according to your ability to respond. However, as members the nuances would have to be much more subtle.

Years ago my father was in a priesthood meeting in which the Stake President told the members to go and dedicate their crops to the Lord. Of the 100 or so men there I have no idea how many prayed about it but my dad took the SP seriously and went into his field and dedicated it to the Lord. A few days later a hail storm flattened the crops on all 4 sides of our land and took a small corner of ours. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. That time my father got a strong lesson about obedience to the Lord's anointed. Others may have needed a different lesson .

And indeed this shows the subtle differences.

 

I actually pray to find my keys and see nothing wrong with it.

[UtahTexan]

God leads us individually in our own individual way- so it is no surprise we each get customized answers.  There is no standard curriculum in becoming like Christ.

 

If you are a drunk on skid row, could God give you a genuine testimony to find the only available ministry- perhaps the Salvation Army- to get you on the road to Christ?

 

I don't doubt it.

 

If history and tradition were incredibly important to you and you treasured these things, might God direct you to follow Catholicism?

 

I am sure.

 

What if you were raised to take the Bible literally and cannot see it otherwise, and do not even question that the Bible IS the directly spoken "Word of God" might an Evangelical church get you closer to Christ?

 

Of course.

 

If you were a worshiper of trees and stones, and Muslims taught you that there was One God and got you on the path in that direction, could God lead you to follow that way?

 

Sure!

 

If personal revelation was of key importance to you, would you perhaps find Mormonism?

 

That's why I am here.

 

We also have to remember that we believe that all these opinions have at least SOME "truth", and that each incremental step we take approaching Christ is a move forward, but for us, eventually we believe that in the eternities "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ".

 

What is unique about Mormons is that we have a point of view that can accommodate disagreement about religion in this way- and no one else does.

 

When we forget these things, we end up posting on boards like these and worrying about having a different testimony than other "genuine testimonies" as if there is really some importance in having everyone agree with OUR WAY and agree RIGHT NOW.

 

There is no such urgency.

 

Give it an eternity or so and don't worry- we will all be on the same page!

 

Another awesome answer.  Thank you.  This is something I have mulled over for several years

[Thinking]

I actually pray to find my keys and see nothing wrong with it.

 

I just look for them where I don't think they are and I have found them every time.

[aaron0005]

I find that almost all of us at one time another would really prefer to live under the law of Moses where all things were directed; no thought was necessary; just follow the rules. It is much harder to live the New Covenant that Christ taught us.  Joseph and Brigham both made it clear that we individually have a responsibility to follow the Spirit and that the leaders of the church were not nearly as perfect and righteous as the membership wants to make them.  

 

We continue to push these fellows into very narrow parameters that are just not acceptable from their very human viewpoint.  I would also say that some of the leaders begin to breathe their own ether too much.  

 

The leadership self-corrects and they do not need a bunch of members running around telling them when they made an error, when they misspoke, when they are imperfect.  

 

If a teaching has not be presented before the membership to accept as doctrine and added to the Standard Works then it is not doctrine, regardless of how much some want some teaching to be doctrine.  

 

These tempests in a teapot are not helpful to anyone. 

I share a similar sentiment in that leaders are put in their orbits by God and given gifts, as well as heavily influenced by the spirit, but even then the Lord does not force and take complete control of ones mind. I also think members should be careful to not get so petty and fault find our leaders. They are men of God. They are apostles, but like apostles of old they are learning as they go.

 

I would at the same time say it is bothersome that a mentality be fostered that church leaders should not be willing to perk their ears up and listen to a wide variety of voices (in the church as it relates to the church) in an effort to stimulate their own thought process and prayerfully consider truth. If we would have had more debate and input on whether to say Lamanites are the sole ancestors of the Indians, I think that would have never been put in, but we had someone like McConckie who was so stuck in his little bubble. Of all people they should be "humble" and willing to learn. They are not experts on psychology, DNA, geology, social issues, and so on and they and "nobody" else are "experts" on the incomprehensible mind of God.

 

Yes, the Lord has chosen them. Yes they are gifted. Yes they have received special revelation (I believe that because little old me has concerning Gods love and the church restored, but I'm still not perfect and right about everything. And I'll add I can just feel it in their personalities that they are the real deal), but this does not mean they cannot listen to the membership to a certain extent. Are we not all children of God and in this together? One thing I do not like is an arrogant stance from priesthood leaders. One reason thousands are leaving! Surely we can be humble and recognize we need to do better.

 

Another very arrogant view I've seen by some members is the assertion that because a local leader has keys he is to get the revelation from the Lord only and if it's coming from lower sources its not coming from the proper channels. This is ridiculous. A true and humble man of God can learn from a child and God would be perfectly fine teaching through a child. While one may have the keys and be the one with the authorization to make the final call, leaders should be willing to listen to members more. It would have saved them a lot of trouble if they were more open to this in the past.

 

I would even say the leader who humbly loves and listen to those around him is the leader who will be the most inspired by the spirit, because he is doing his part by not expecting God to do everything without going through the natural process.

 

As far as this not being a church where everything is written down and whether we should be commanded in all things, I think its good to not be commanded in all things, but this is different. Apostles should be on the same page when it comes to what is official doctrine and what is not. Just in the last couple months I've had two people (non members) here in NY bring up the belief that we do not drink caffeine. Frankly its silly and its not in the D and C. This is what I mean when I insinuate apostles should be concerned about perception and not making each-other look silly. It hurts weaker peoples faith. Stick to official doctrine until official revelation comes.

 

Now, not drinking caffeine you could say is one of those doctrines that is not clear but it would please God because of your dedication (not being commanded in all things). I'm not saying either way. I grew up not drinking it, but would not have a problem myself sipping on a coke from time to time. Besides, its disappointing when I see people so dedicated and fanatical to all these other things, rather than really becoming obsessed with Christlike principles.

 

I know a lot of people who left and right, carelessly and recklessly breach these more serious commands to love one another, yet nit pick on whether one brother is always at class or not, not knowing his circumstance and how hard he secretly tries. I saw it on the mission especially, which is another thing that needs bettering and if you don't believe me take a close look at the number of RMs going off the deep end, in part no doubt because the mission had some kind of negative effect, but oh no, you can't listen to us down here. The same could be said for intimacy and how the members have moved the worlds way on this, unless your single of course, but once your married its a free for all, for many Mormons I know.

Edited July 14, 2014 by aaron0005

[aaron0005]

God leads us individually in our own individual way- so it is no surprise we each get customized answers.  There is no standard curriculum in becoming like Christ.

 

If you are a drunk on skid row, could God give you a genuine testimony to find the only available ministry- perhaps the Salvation Army- to get you on the road to Christ?

 

I don't doubt it.

 

If history and tradition were incredibly important to you and you treasured these things, might God direct you to follow Catholicism?

 

I am sure.

 

What if you were raised to take the Bible literally and cannot see it otherwise, and do not even question that the Bible IS the directly spoken "Word of God" might an Evangelical church get you closer to Christ?

 

Of course.

 

If you were a worshiper of trees and stones, and Muslims taught you that there was One God and got you on the path in that direction, could God lead you to follow that way?

 

Sure!

 

If personal revelation was of key importance to you, would you perhaps find Mormonism?

 

That's why I am here.

 

We also have to remember that we believe that all these opinions have at least SOME "truth", and that each incremental step we take approaching Christ is a move forward, but for us, eventually we believe that in the eternities "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ".

 

What is unique about Mormons is that we have a point of view that can accommodate disagreement about religion in this way- and no one else does.

 

When we forget these things, we end up posting on boards like these and worrying about having a different testimony than other "genuine testimonies" as if there is really some importance in having everyone agree with OUR WAY and agree RIGHT NOW.

 

There is no such urgency.

 

Give it an eternity or so and don't worry- we will all be on the same page!

mfbukowski,

 

What great insight and and there is a lot of truth to it. Of course sometimes it can also blind people for longer. One religion may teach people our church is a cult or brainwash people claiming Christ was a fraud. I surely agree with you though that God is "far" more creative than we could ever comprehend. Whether you believe in Jesus or not, you can still be a shallow person, grossly sinful and not Christlike and yet totally believe in him, while being brainwashed Christ was a fraud, but still be a warm, kind, unselfish and very moral person. God cares more about this than anything. He cares about our happiness and our character and when we fail, whether we know it or not, that is where Christ comes in. In the end every knee will bow and every tongue confess and come to understand but I think our view is greatly limited.

[aaron0005]

Tacenda, I think you have read enough comments from me to know that I do not coddle them for their own mistakes.  I don't suffer foolish lightly or easily.  

 

My objective with these current posts is how we might best handle the mistakes of the leadership.  What is the best correction?  I have no control over what the leadership does; I have complete control over my own actions and choices.  If I thought it was healthy to constantly point an accusing finger at others for their own shortcomings, I would state that is the best way to go.  However, I don't think it is.  If we can frame the conversation in how best to handle it personally, then we have a easier time of being happy.

 

If we are going to create a standard for the leadership are we just as prepared to live by that same standard?  I for one do not want to live my life constantly saying I am sorry every time I doing something that is perceived wrong by myself or others.  I have the impression that is what life was like under the law of Moses.  I am just grateful that I live in a time where I am not commanded in all things and can struggle to find and follow the Spirit of the law by myself.  

 

Tacenda, I think you have read enough comments from me to know that I do not coddle them for their own mistakes.  I don't suffer foolish lightly or easily.  

 

My objective with these current posts is how we might best handle the mistakes of the leadership.  What is the best correction?  I have no control over what the leadership does; I have complete control over my own actions and choices.  If I thought it was healthy to constantly point an accusing finger at others for their own shortcomings, I would state that is the best way to go.  However, I don't think it is.  If we can frame the conversation in how best to handle it personally, then we have a easier time of being happy.

 

If we are going to create a standard for the leadership are we just as prepared to live by that same standard?  I for one do not want to live my life constantly saying I am sorry every time I doing something that is perceived wrong by myself or others.  I have the impression that is what life was like under the law of Moses.  I am just grateful that I live in a time where I am not commanded in all things and can struggle to find and follow the Spirit of the law by myself.  

Storm Rider,

 

I don't think anyone is trying to create an unreasonable standard for the leaders. I think people would like to see some betterment in the church and they feel one way to do it is to open other peoples minds and help people to understand, but unfortunately there is an ignorance and arrogance among many that prevents this and I do not believe it is inspired from heaven.. We cannot necessarily change priesthood leaders (particularly at the top and I would not want to on official doctrine), especially if he or they are unwilling to listen, but we can educate people on these matters and the church can become more sensitive and conscious of these concerns. I've seen too many people hurt and offended because they were taught bishops were these great men of God, with the "gift of discernment" and admonished to go see their loving bishop only to find out he is anything but Christlike, concerned or being able to discern. This has shaken a lot of people. This should be addressed. There should be a list of official doctrines leaders stick by and make a pledge to not stray away from it, if its on big stuff like when the birth of Jesus is and for the sake of not contradicting each-other.