If L D S Leaders Are Fallible, Why Is It So Hard To Admit Specific Mistakes?

[Thinking]

Critics criticize, and apologists defend. Sometimes part of a general defense will be that LDS leaders are ordinary men who make mistakes. Yet when specifics are discussed, words like misunderstood or phrases like taken out of context are frequently used to paint a better picture. It's easy to admit that the leaders aren't perfect, but it seems to be more difficult to acknowledge the details of the imperfections.

[why me]

Of course, all leaders have private lives and in private life, all make mistakes. However, I do not remember anyone saying that any specific revelation was a mistake. However, since all have private lives and church lives, I am sure that the private as mixed with the church life in matters of opinion. But in revelation, I see no mistakes. For example, Hinckley's interview with larry king. Here was a mixture of old age, private life and church life. And he misspoke. And I believe he clarified it later.

 

When one is angry at the church, or leaves the church, one is more than willing to pick  up the ball and criticize hinckley because it validates the person's decision to leave among many other reasons. But most know that all of us have private lives and private opinions.

[Glenn101]

Critics criticize, and apologists defend. Sometimes part of a general defense will be that LDS leaders are ordinary men who make mistakes. Yet when specifics are discussed, words like misunderstood or phrases like taken out of context are frequently used to paint a better picture. It's easy to admit that the leaders aren't perfect, but it seems to be more difficult to acknowledge the details of the imperfections.

 

Maybe it is because all do not feel that the "mistakes" were mistakes. Maybe you could be a bit more specific??

 

Thanks,

Glenn

[Thinking]

I see no mistakes. For example, Hinckley's interview with larry king. Here was a mixture of old age, private life and church life. And he misspoke. And I believe he clarified it later.

 

What did he misspeak, and when did he clarify it?

[DBMormon]

Of course, all leaders have private lives and in private life, all make mistakes. However, I do not remember anyone saying that any specific revelation was a mistake. 

how about this - http://scottwoodward.org/adam-god_brucermcconkie.html

 

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works....

I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved.... As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation....

I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality....

[rockpond]

Critics criticize, and apologists defend. Sometimes part of a general defense will be that LDS leaders are ordinary men who make mistakes. Yet when specifics are discussed, words like misunderstood or phrases like taken out of context are frequently used to paint a better picture. It's easy to admit that the leaders aren't perfect, but it seems to be more difficult to acknowledge the details of the imperfections.

As Why Me demonstrated, it seems to me that many members believe "leader fallibility" does not apply to the work done in their callings.

[Senator]

Mormons technically admit that their leaders are fallible, but none believe they actually ever have been, are or will be.

[The Nehor]

Mormons technically admit that their leaders are fallible, but none believe they actually ever have been, are or will be.

No, I have a mental list. I just do not bring it up for fear of breaking covenants or sowing doubt.

[Senator]

No, I have a mental list. I just do not bring it up for fear of breaking covenants or sowing doubt.

 

Ah...so let me revise my statement:

 

Mormons technically admit that their leaders are fallible. Though some believe they actually never have been, are, or will be. Some believe they have been, but out of fear would never admit it.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Senator

[omni]

You know, all the issues people are losing their testimonies over. He was too trusting (Harris and the lost 116 pages), lost his temper a couple of times, wrestled with kids, some unmentionable shenanigans as a child, etc.

[The Nehor]

Ah...so let me revise my statement:

 

Mormons technically admit that their leaders are fallible. Some believe they actually never have been, are, or will be. Some believe they have been, but out of fear would never admit it.

I did not know you considered love a kind of fear. That is very odd.

[Senator]

I did not know you considered love a kind of fear. That is very odd.

Where did I say that?

[smac97]

Critics criticize, and apologists defend.

Yes, that is the way of things.

 

Sometimes part of a general defense will be that LDS leaders are ordinary men who make mistakes.

Yep.

 

Yet when specifics are discussed, words like misunderstood or phrases like taken out of context are frequently used to paint a better picture.

You'll have to do better than this. Give us some examples of when this has happened.

 

It's easy to admit that the leaders aren't perfect, but it seems to be more difficult to acknowledge the details of the imperfections.

I'm not sure what the point and purpose of such an exercise would be. Some critics construe "imperfections" of LDS leaders as evidence that those leaders are not prophets. Latter-day Saints construe "imperfections" in their leaders as imperfections which make them human, but not "fallen" as far as their priesthood offices or standing before God. (I'm speaking generally here, as there are some exceptions where LDS leaders did lose their priesthood office, albeit for varying reasons - i.e., Sidney Rigdon, William Smith, John W. Taylor, Lyman Wight, Amasa Lyman, William E. McLellin, John Q. Cannon, Thomas B. Marsh, Benjamin L. Clapp, Albert Carrington, Alpheus Cutler, John E. Page, Richard R. Lyman, and George P. Lee).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2015 by smac97

[stemelbow]

Critics criticize, and apologists defend.

Not fond of that dichotomy. We all criticize and we all defend. No one is neatly fixed in a box, or shouldn't be.

Sometimes part of a general defense will be that LDS leaders are ordinary men who make mistakes. Yet when specifics are discussed, words like misunderstood or phrases like taken out of context are frequently used to paint a better picture. It's easy to admit that the leaders aren't perfect, but it seems to be more difficult to acknowledge the details of the imperfections.

I agree with this issue. But I can sympathize with people. Anything said at any time can be argued about, it seems like. Contextualizing can, indeed, help explain the point, can indeed, help modern minds understand where teachings and ideas came from. And it's also quite true that anyone at any time can misunderstand another. It's fair to at least talk about. But my main issue here is I'm not a fan of promoting different sides in this. All of us disagree about many things. Any LDS person can simultaneously criticize a point made by leaders and also defend another point by another leader. Any critic can both criticize on some point and defend on another.

[ALarson]

Critics criticize, and apologists defend. Sometimes part of a general defense will be that LDS leaders are ordinary men who make mistakes. Yet when specifics are discussed, words like misunderstood or phrases like taken out of context are frequently used to paint a better picture. It's easy to admit that the leaders aren't perfect, but it seems to be more difficult to acknowledge the details of the imperfections

From what I've seen, most are willing to admit or discuss that past leaders of the church have made mistakes and are fallible until it comes to Joseph Smith.  They'll say he was human, etc., but when it comes to believing he was mistaken about anything, they usually say things like, "he was just doing the best he could when being asked or commanded to do 'such and such'".  

 

So, admit that Joseph Smith was wrong about something?  I've rarely seen this.  But, admit that Brigham Young was wrong about something?  Yes.

 

Maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that there is a double standard when dealing with Joseph Smith vs. other past Prophets or leaders of the church.

Edited April 21, 2015 by ALarson

[Glenn101]

Mormons technically admit that their leaders are fallible, but none believe they actually ever have been, are or will be.

 

 

I thought you were a Mormon.

[williamsmith]

Critics criticize, and apologists defend. Sometimes part of a general defense will be that LDS leaders are ordinary men who make mistakes. Yet when specifics are discussed, words like misunderstood or phrases like taken out of context are frequently used to paint a better picture. It's easy to admit that the leaders aren't perfect, but it seems to be more difficult to acknowledge the details of the imperfections.

 

Because nearly every time whatever's being criticized, it is being "misunderstood", taken out of context, etc.

That's why.

 

For example, some things Brigham Young said are considered racist, but they actually aren't being said in that sort of way.

While of course, other things are or are at least ethno-centrist.  So, we will find fault in those.

 

Or another example.  The claims that some early leaders taught God had "sex" with Mary to produce Jesus.

Me, I've read every claimed quote, every one of them in context also, and NEVER have I interpreted them to be saying "sex" in what they are saying.

Thus, our leaders words are in fact being misunderstood, and taken out of context of their surrounding text, out of context of the leaders beliefs and other words, and out of context of the history of why it was said.

 

Mary clearly said she had not known man, thus couldn't be pregnant.  Anti's then like to claim "man" in quotes, as a workaround; however, there is one big problem with that workaround.

In order for God the Father to have had "sex" with Mary.... can you tell me what "form" God would have been in?  A MAN.

Either way, no matter who-ever actually has believed this idea (though really no LDS has, despite claims), bottom line is I understand what they are teaching, and it's not sex.

 

Thus, the LDS leaders weren't wrong.  It's peoples interpretations of their words that are wrong.

 

So, bottom line....  You wonder why LDS don't condemn our leaders as much as anti's?  It's because anti's distort everything, and there is very little actual error and mistakes in LDS history in comparison.

[ERayR]

Critics criticize, and apologists defend. Sometimes part of a general defense will be that LDS leaders are ordinary men who make mistakes. Yet when specifics are discussed, words like misunderstood or phrases like taken out of context are frequently used to paint a better picture. It's easy to admit that the leaders aren't perfect, but it seems to be more difficult to acknowledge the details of the imperfections.

 

Who gets to choose what is a mistake?

[Senator]

I thought you were a Mormon.

Me too!

[HappyJackWagon]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

Of course there is the famous Uchtdorf Quote about mistakes.

"to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine."

And of course in the Race and Priesthood essay we have the disavowal of past teachings.

Mistakes can be made by any person, even prophets, both in personal and church capacities. To expect otherwise is to have unrealistic expectations.

So why are we slow to admit what those mistakes may be? Because they are rarely acknowledged by the church which leaves others to speculate about what is and what isn't a mistake. Besides acknowledging mistakes in doctrine or practice could require a change in paradigm. In some ways it's easier to assume some people are perfect in telling us God's will, because if we admit they are sometimes wrong we assume greater personal responsibility to figure things out for ourselves.

[smac97]

Mormons technically admit that their leaders are fallible, but none believe they actually ever have been, are or will be.

Wow! Nothing like a fresh, hot cup of Bearing False Witness in the morning to get the blood pumping!

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

Wow! Nothing like a fresh, hot cup of Bearing False Witness in the morning to get the blood pumping!

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Oh lighten up smac

 

I was simply playing off of the the old joke about Mormons and Catholics.

 

And I did revise my statement....which may actually be truthful.

 

At any rate, I hope your blood pressure returns to normal.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Senator

[cinepro]

For example, some things Brigham Young said are considered racist, but they actually aren't being said in that sort of way.

While of course, other things are or are at least ethno-centrist.  So, we will find fault in those.

 

Or another example.  The claims that some early leaders taught God had "sex" with Mary to produce Jesus.

Me, I've read every claimed quote, every one of them in context also, and NEVER have I interpreted them to be saying "sex" in what they are saying.

Thus, our leaders words are in fact being misunderstood, and taken out of context of their surrounding text, out of context of the leaders beliefs and other words, and out of context of the history of why it was said.

 

Mary clearly said she had not known man, thus couldn't be pregnant.  Anti's then like to claim "man" in quotes, as a workaround; however, there is one big problem with that workaround.

In order for God the Father to have had "sex" with Mary.... can you tell me what "form" God would have been in?  A MAN.

Either way, no matter who-ever actually has believed this idea (though really no LDS has, despite claims), bottom line is I understand what they are teaching, and it's not sex.

 

Thus, the LDS leaders weren't wrong.  It's peoples interpretations of their words that are wrong.

 

 

I'm guessing English is your second language.

[ERayR]

I'm guessing English is your second language.

 

Or maybe he is coming from a different point of view.

[Storm Rider]

Ah...so let me revise my statement:

 

Mormons technically admit that their leaders are fallible. Though some believe they actually never have been, are, or will be. Some believe they have been, but out of fear would never admit it.

 

That is in interesting point of view; I don't share it in any degree, shape or form.  I think the LDS that I know hope their leaders choose the right at all times, but they are willing to admit that they are human and put their pants on just like everyone else.  I guess we just live in different areas.