Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope, it was not a personal attack. The OP asked for times when we had heard something from leaders that wasn't agreed with. I gave an example.

 

 

Here is what the OP said:

 

With all the focus on whether something said or taught is doctrine in the church these days,

I was wondering if there are any major things you have read in the church magazines or

training manuals or heard at General Conference talks that the Holy Spirit revealed to you

was actually a false teaching? Or do you believe everything that an LDS apostle or elder

tells you is really true?

 

Obviously it is calling for more than "something from leaders that wasn't agreed with." As encapsulated in the thread title, it is calling for instances when Church leaders have led the people astray.

 

And you eagerly jumped right in there with something that had stuck in your craw.

 

In case it hadn't occurred to you, it is a very grave accusation to allege that someone who holds the sacred calling that Elder Holland does is leading the people of God astray.

[canard78]

Here is what the OP said:

Obviously it is calling for more than "something from leaders that wasn't agreed with." As encapsulated in the thread title, it is calling for instances when Church leaders have led the people astray.

And you eagerly jumped right in there with something that had stuck in your craw.

In case it hadn't occurred to you, it is a very grave accusation to allege that someone who holds the sacred calling that Elder Holland does is leading the people of God astray.

The OP asked:

"...do you believe everything that an LDS apostle or elder tells you is really true?"

Simply put, no I don't.

There are things taught by LDS leaders that I don't consider true. I won't annoy you all by listing them all here.

Joseph Fielding Smith said in 1972:

Now, brethren, I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.

I personally don't feel that the April 2014 talk was the "mind and will of the Lord."

The model provided is that men teach principles, we consider and pray about them. Some will follow that model and reach agreement with everything the LDS leaders say. Others won't. I'm in the latter group. I find it a shame that some of the thread participants (and less-so from you Scott) feel it appropriate to make personal attacks when I open up about that.

I don't agree with the April 2014 talk by Elder Holland. I don't agree with the message and I don't agree with the rhetoric. That doesn't mean I don't like Elder Holland. Some of his talks remain among my favourite conference talks ever.

It's not about having something stuck in my craw, it's about listening, evaluating and concluding. Isn't that what we all do at conference? Isn't that what we're taught to do. The prophetic model allows for the fact that some people won't each alignment with a given message. If not then the model is pointless. If it's always a forgone conclusion then why provide the opportunity for personal and prayerful evaluation of what is said?

[CV75]

Obviously it is calling for more than "something from leaders that wasn't agreed with." As encapsulated in the thread title, it is calling for instances when Church leaders have led the people astray.

Agreed--and none of the examples given have done that, which I understood in that context to be the meaning of "false" ... LOL

[CV75]

The OP asked:

"...do you believe everything that an LDS apostle or elder tells you is really true?"

The OP asked, "Or do you believe everything that an LDS apostle or elder tells you is really true?" to indicate that you believe there are no  "major things you have read in the church magazines or training manuals or heard at General Conference talks that the Holy Spirit revealed to you was actually a false teaching."

[canard78]

Agreed--and none of the examples given have done that, which I understood in that context to be the meaning of "false" ... LOL

And this is what I find so interesting about LDS trust in prophets.

Even after being able to acknowledge that a prophet has been the source of teaching doctrine that is not true, that person might still not want to accept that the prophet could be the source of teachings that are false.

The assumption seems to be that past untrue teachings don't mean that today's are possibly untrue too.

[CV75]

So what you've done here is present some reasons why scripture would support the teaching that black skin is a sign of a curse/divine disfavour and that black skin might reflect conduct in the premortal existence.

No. What I've done here is demonstrate why it isn't worth arguing about since either position can be argued either way, which I explained.

 

If your scriptures support a doctrine of black skin being a sign of a cursing then the 2013 is false doctrine. Which one do you choose? They can't both be true.

 

That's a pretty big "if" -- I have other scriptures that support otherwise, but that does not make either statement a false doctrine; they can both be true.

 

As I originally said, things change; that does not necessarily make the former or latter state false in their respective contexts.

 

Because the living prophets have the keys to establish doctrine, it would be false doctrine to actually teach and promote (and not just believe and in some cases argue for the sake of discussion or exploration) that the current state is false.

[CV75]

The assumption seems to be that past untrue teachings don't mean that today's are possibly untrue too.

There is a difference between revelation and possibilities. Truth is not a possibility. For example, in line with the OP, the Holy Spirit has not revealed to any member that major things he has read in the church magazines or training manuals or heard at General Conference are actually a false teaching.

[Silhouette]

FWIW: For me there's a difference between "teaching false doctrine" and "teaching untruths".

The former means intentionally and willfully leading people astray.

The latter means the teacher thinks that what he is teaching is true, and there is no ill intent involved.

Just my personal take on the terms. Doesn't mean my take is correct.

[CV75]

Even after being able to acknowledge that a prophet has been the source of teaching doctrine that is not true, that person might still not want to accept that the prophet could be the source of teachings that are false.

Just because prior leaders' teachings are disavowed and we have a witness that the current leaders' teachings are true, does not mean that the prior leaders' teachings were necessarily false. All it means is that things change.

[canard78]

Just because prior leaders' teachings are disavowed and we have a witness that the current leaders' teachings are true, does not mean that the prior leaders' teachings were necessarily false. All it means is that things change.

This makes no sense at all.

If subsequent prophets say:

"X is true"

And

"X is not true"

How can you reconcile that neither statement is untrue?

If two prophets make statements that are polar opposites and if both statements are taught as God's will/doctrine (not opinion/belief etc) then one of those statements is not true.

[canard78]

FWIW: For me there's a difference between "teaching false doctrine" and "teaching untruths".

The former means intentionally and willfully leading people astray.

The latter means the teacher thinks that what he is teaching is true, and there is no ill intent involved.

Just my personal take on the terms. Doesn't mean my take is correct.

I'm happy to take intent out of it. I don't think any LDS prophet has intentionally misled members or knowingly said something that is untrue.

Generally speaking, "false" is synonymous with "untrue" however the etymology of "false" is from "fraud" or "deception."

On that basis I'm happy to discuss whether a prophet can be the source of "untrue" doctrine, rather than discuss "false" doctrine as we'd have to establish intent.

It does make a difference, but still doesn't alter the fact that following a prophet can lead to believing things which are not true.

[canard78]

There is a difference between revelation and possibilities. Truth is not a possibility. For example, in line with the OP, the Holy Spirit has not revealed to any member that major things he has read in the church magazines or training manuals or heard at General Conference are actually a false teaching.

"Any member"? How can you know?

So was "black skin is a sign of a curse" said as a revelation or a possibility? It was stated to be doctrine. Is all doctrine only a possibility?

[Silhouette]

I'm happy to take intent out of it. I don't think any LDS prophet has intentionally misled members or knowingly said something that is untrue.

Generally speaking, "false" is synonymous with "untrue" however the etymology of "false" is from "fraud" or "deception."

On that basis I'm happy to discuss whether a prophet can be the source of "untrue" doctrine, rather than discuss "false" doctrine as we'd have to establish intent.

It does make a difference, but still doesn't alter the fact that following a prophet can lead to believing things which are not true.

Actually I was speaking of the terms generally, not really intending to apply them necessarily to Prophets. I identify the difference to everyday living and things people present as the truth. I do think that intent is present in general situations. I don't think any Prophet had intentionally led us astray either, hence my application of the terms to general everyday life situations. I should have been clearer in my original post.

[canard78]

Actually I was speaking of the terms generally, not really intending to apply them necessarily to Prophets. I identify the difference to everyday living and things people present as the truth. I do think that intent is present in general situations. I don't think any Prophet had intentionally led us astray either, hence my application of the terms to general everyday life situations. I should have been clearer in my original post.

Don't worry, you were clear. My reply was intended to indicate my agreement. If that didn't come across in my post then I probably should have been clearer too.

My point after agreeing was simply to say that whether there is intent to deceive or not (and I agree that the evidence supports that prophets are not) that the reality remains for me that prophets can be a source of "untrue" doctrine and that time does not support President Joseph Fielding Smith's statement that:

“I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will (n)ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord”.

If something is not true (whether intentional or not) then it seems a simple conclusion to say that they are not the mind of the Lord.

For example, was it the "mind of the Lord" to say that black skin is a sign of a curse. Today the church says it isn't. In the 1940s they said it was.

[Silhouette]

Don't worry, you were clear. My reply was intended to indicate my agreement. If that didn't come across in my post then I probably should have been clearer too.

My point after agreeing was simply to say that whether there is intent to deceive or not (and I agree that the evidence supports that prophets are not) that the reality remains for me that prophets can be a source of "untrue" doctrine and that time does not support President Joseph Fielding Smith's statement that:

If something is not true (whether intentional or not) then it seems a simple conclusion to say that they are not the mind of the Lord.

For example, was it the "mind of the Lord" to say that black skin is a sign of a curse. Today the church says it isn't. In the 1940s they said it was.

Good points.

[CV75]

This makes no sense at all.

If subsequent prophets say:

"X is true"

And

"X is not true"

How can you reconcile that neither statement is untrue?

If two prophets make statements that are polar opposites and if both statements are taught as God's will/doctrine (not opinion/belief etc) then one of those statements is not true.

It is simple: due to the principle of change, they are not taught or asserted concurrently so as to oppose each other.

[Silhouette]

It is simple: due to the principle of change, they are not taught or asserted concurrently so as to oppose each other.

I understand this concept. For example: It's raining in the morning and my mother says it's cloudy. The clouds go away in the afternoon and my sister says it's sunny.

The fact that my sister saying it's sunny now doesn't mean that my mom saying it was cloudy in the morning was untrue. Both can be true. The difference is the change in circumstances.

Perhaps over-simplified, but this illustrates the concept well for me.

[CV75]

"Any member"? How can you know?

So was "black skin is a sign of a curse" said as a revelation or a possibility? It was stated to be doctrine. Is all doctrine only a possibility?

I guess it really doesn't matter how I can know, or can't/don't. I do know. But I can say that I know that the Holy Spirit has not revealed to any member that major things he has read in the church magazines or training manuals or heard at General Conference are actually a false teaching.

 

We can go around and around on revelation vs. possibility -- that is my point. You are demonstrating your belief that things that are said as revelation today are possibly not.

[Vance]

I see you're still not prepared to discuss or defend the actual topic and would instead prefer to stick with an ad hominem approach while avoiding the issues raised.

No need for me to jump in when others are doing such a fantastic job of schooling you.

Carry on.

 

You are out of the thread.

[Tacenda]

Prophet

In religion, a prophet is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people. The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy.

 

Or

• proph·et
• [ próffət ]
•  

1. somebody who interprets divine will: somebody who claims to interpret or transmit the commands of a deity
2. somebody predicting the future: somebody who predicts the future
3. advocate of something: somebody who advocates a cause or idea

 

Which is the preferred?  I guess we just don't know which we are getting really. 

 

Edited November 4, 2014 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

 

Prophet

In religion, a prophet is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people. The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy.

 

Or

• proph·et
• [ próffət ]
•  

1. somebody who interprets divine will: somebody who claims to interpret or transmit the commands of a deity
2. somebody predicting the future: somebody who predicts the future
3. advocate of something: somebody who advocates a cause or idea

 

Which is the preferred?  I guess we just don't know which we are getting really. 

 

 

 

I would say we get number 1 but that we have to take it more on faith than in days past since they no longer transmit the commands as the word of God.  Instead we get the interpretations of his will.

[canard78]

It is simple: due to the principle of change, they are not taught or asserted concurrently so as to oppose each other.

----

I understand this concept. For example: It's raining in the morning and my mother says it's cloudy. The clouds go away in the afternoon and my sister says it's sunny.

The fact that my sister saying it's sunny now doesn't mean that my mom saying it was cloudy in the morning was untrue. Both can be true. The difference is the change in circumstances.

Perhaps over-simplified, but this illustrates the concept well for me.

Do you really believe that?

So in 1949 black skin really was a sign of God's disfavour/sign of a curse but in 1978/2013 it was no longer a sign of a curse?

In 1949 black skin reflected the conduct of black people in the pre-mortal world but from 1978 or in 2013 black skin no longer was a sign of pre-mortal conduct?

What about someone black who was born in 1945 and still alive in 1978 and 2013? Was their black skin a sign of a curse/premortal conduct in 1949 but then stopped being so in 1978?

[Rob Osborn]

The church teaches as well as they can the principles they hold to be true. Does this mean everything the church teaches is true? No. And certainly at every level in the church down to each individual person within their callings, we all make mistakes, teach the wrong thing sometimes, etc. We arent perfect. Generally though, we all flow in the same direction and just put upwith the bumpy ride along the way.

[omni]

This is about as black and white of an example you can get of the brethren promoting a false teaching. Yet there are still many here who for whatever reason can't admit that church leaders were wrong. What part of fallible do we not understand?

[CV75]

----

Do you really believe that?

So in 1949 black skin really was a sign of God's disfavour/sign of a curse but in 1978/2013 it was no longer a sign of a curse?

In 1949 black skin reflected the conduct of black people in the pre-mortal world but from 1978 or in 2013 black skin no longer was a sign of pre-mortal conduct?

What about someone black who was born in 1945 and still alive in 1978 and 2013? Was their black skin a sign of a curse/premortal conduct in 1949 but then stopped being so in 1978?

A principle only becomes false after two conditions are met: 1) the light and intelligence of a true principle shines on the scene to replace it and 2) the principle persists in our minds and actions in opposition to the truth.

 

The implementation of the restriction cannot be traced to a rejection of or opposition to some previously specific practice allowing it (some may have been ordained previously, but the restriction was not in rebellion against that), but the removal of the restriction can be attributed to new light and knowledge. Where there was no light (true principle) present, neither the restriction nor the theories that were advanced for it can be said to be in opposition to it (or false), since something that isn’t evident cannot be opposed. Until it is used to oppose truth, a principle doesn’t really matter.

 

For example, Peter wasn’t chastised until he questioned or opposed the lifting of the restriction in his day. We tend to credit the Reformers for the light they could manage to share in an Apostasy they did not create.

 

This is why Elder McConkie spends a couple of paragraphs to discourage people from focusing on what doesn’t matter (http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570), and this attitude is reflected in the Race and Priesthood article. He also speaks of slivers of light and particles of darkness, which keep things in perspective with regards to our receiving light and intelligence line upon line, and which pale in comparison to what builds as the Restoration progresses.

 

That said, there are still many false notions that oppose the current light and knowledge our prophets stand for, in the name of change.