ERayR Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 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. And most of us are not looking for a reason to find fault with them. 1
Senator Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 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. For what its worth, I don't share that point of view either. In my revised statement I was attempting to restate what I have heard before. Yes, I do know of individuals that hold to a certain infallibility of the church leaders. I've seen some on this forum. (don't cfr me, I'm going by recollection). And, thanks to the Nehor, I now know of at least one individual who does believe the leadership has made mistakes, but out of fear(love) would never openly admit it.
cinepro Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Or maybe he is coming from a different point of view. He is, but it's a different point of view than that expressed by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, James E. Talmage, Melvin Ballard, Bruce R. McConkie, and Ezra Taft Benson. It's fine to read their claims and disagree with them (many LDS do), but it seems a little presumptuous to claim a superior understanding than that of other Church leaders (since they were making their claims in support of the other statements made by other leaders). The ultimate question is whether it would somehow be morally wrong if He did what those leaders said He did. If the answer is "no", then there's no need to reinterpret their statements. They're simply saying that God did something that was okay. 1
Storm Rider Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 For what its worth, I don't share that point of view either. In my revised statement I was attempting to restate what I have heard before. Yes, I do know of individuals that hold to a certain infallibility of the church leaders. I've seen some on this forum. (don't cfr me, I'm going by recollection). And, thanks to the Nehor, I now know of at least one individual who does believe the leadership has made mistakes, but out of fear(love) would never openly admit it. Senator, I strongly suspect and think that I have met several individual LDS that do maintain an idealistic approach to the gospel. I also think that some individuals have a very immature perspective and they just need some time to grow and learn. As a young man I was an idealist and a romantic. It was too easy for me to put leaders on a very high pedestal; so high that all a leader could do was fall off. That is a growing experience for all those who have similar sensibilities. Regardless, I don't think any of us should draw broad brushstrokes because some of us are presently currently idealistic. People grow up, but the Gospel is made up of a broad range of individuals with a wide range of perspectives.
why me Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 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....Of course, I mentioned revelation and not doctrine. I haven't heard that a general authority had an incorrect revelation. And that was my point in my former post. Did BY claim that he received a revelation about adam-god? We need to remember what edward kimball said about his dad. He said that his dad was his father first and he saw him as a dad. This means that he saw his dad as a human being who had a calling but he was just a guy, a dad. We need to think about all GAs this way. As human beings who are dads, moms, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles, and cousins. Just human beings who have special callings.
HappyJackWagon Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) #1 Of course, I mentioned revelation and not doctrine. I haven't heard that a general authority had an incorrect revelation. #2 We need to think about all GAs this way. As human beings who are dads, moms, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles, and cousins. Just human beings who have special callings. #1- When is the last time you heard a general authority pronounce any revelation? I'm serious. I'd like to see some modern examples. It's hard to have incorrect revelations if there are no revelations occuring. I guess that's one way to hold down the errors. #2- I agree completely. These leaders are people first. My father is a very good man who has held many significant leadership positions but I'd never expect him to be perfect, either in his daily living, or in his understanding and interpretation of scripture. It's simply not possible. Edited April 21, 2015 by HappyJackWagon 1
rpn Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Because the people who are assessing the "mistake" doesn't really have any capacity to know whether or not it was a mistake, or an intentional act, or is being interpreted as a mistake when God really told them to do it. 2
Jeanne Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 I am just catching up on this thread..but just wanted to say that this is one of best questions presented in a long time. Can't wait to find out how all of you think! Hope you are all having a great day.
stemelbow Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Because the people who are assessing the "mistake" doesn't really have any capacity to know whether or not it was a mistake, or an intentional act, or is being interpreted as a mistake when God really told them to do it. Take that, Elder Uchdorf. Don't tell us past leaders have made mistakes. We know you don't know what you're talking about, and God is the one who is author of all of those so-called "mistakes". 3
Robert F. Smith Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 As Why Me demonstrated, it seems to me that many members believe "leader fallibility" does not apply to the work done in their callings. Mormons technically admit that their leaders are fallible, but none believe they actually ever have been, are or will be.I believe that both these claims are false. Members who think in that way are setting themselves (and their children) up for a great disappointment. Many who apostatize later claim these propositions as eternal truth, which is utter nonsense. Leaders and ordinary members are all fallible, in and out of their callings. 2
rockpond Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Because the people who are assessing the "mistake" doesn't really have any capacity to know whether or not it was a mistake, or an intentional act, or is being interpreted as a mistake when God really told them to do it. We don't have any capacity? What about the Holy Ghost? Certainly you aren't suggesting blind obedience since we don't have the capacity to assess what our leaders say. 1
rockpond Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 I believe that both these claims are false. Members who think in that way are setting themselves (and their children) up for a great disappointment. Many who apostatize later claim these propositions as eternal truth, which is utter nonsense. Leaders and ordinary members are all fallible, in and out of their callings. I agree. So how do you personally draw the line between leader fallibility and un-strayilibity ("prophet cannot lead us astray")?
Mystery Meat Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 I fully accept the idea of leader fallibility. People make mistakes, leaders are people, therefore it stands to reason that they make mistakes. The problem arises, however, in identifying individual mistakes. There are those that want (need) the Church to disclaim every such mistake. I think that is hard to do. First, because if you are going to call something a mistake, you better be darn sure it is a mistake. I think there are very few such occasions where we can call something a mistake. I tend to believe the priesthood ban was a mistake, HOWEVER, I would never (were I a leader) say such based only on my gut feeling. It would take a pretty impressive revelation for me to venture that far. So, while the Church and its history is undoubtedly littered with mistakes, I think its membership would be wise to consider specific actions individually and on their own. If they come to the conclusion that any action was a mistake, I think it is for their own personal benefit, and they have no ecclesiastical right to preach any one principal was indeed a mistake (ie, polygamy). In fact, once they overstep their bounds and start proclaiming such without divine authority, I think their so called "spiritual experiences" are counterfeit and they have been deceived. That is simply not the proper order of things. 1
Thinking Posted April 22, 2015 Author Posted April 22, 2015 The discussion about the Lectures on Faith is a perfect example of why I started this topic. Instead of just admitting that there were some errors in them that needed to be corrected, alternative reasons for removing them have been created by both the Church and apologists. They weren't presented as revelations to the whole Church.They were only bound for convenience.
carbon dioxide Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 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.I don't believe in any perfect prophets accept Christ. So I am always willing to admit that a prophet can make a mistake. At the same time we also need to be humble and admit that what we think is a mistake might be more of a mistake on our part at understanding the issue than a mistake by the prophet. I feel sorry for those who spend a lot of time trying to find faults in the prophets as when they are judged by God, God may decide to search their lives and find all the faults they had as well. 2
BCSpace Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 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. I think the vast majority of the problem is enemies of the Church ascribing problems that don't exist. Polyandry, MMM, racism, and the whole drill. 4
Tacenda Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 I think the vast majority of the problem is enemies of the Church ascribing problems that don't exist. Polyandry, MMM, racism, and the whole drill.You don't think these were a problem?
BCSpace Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) You don't think these were a problem? I believe they're baseless accusations, not representative of fallibility in the leadership. Edited April 22, 2015 by BCSpace 2
DBMormon Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 I don't believe in any perfect prophets accept Christ. So I am always willing to admit that a prophet can make a mistake. At the same time we also need to be humble and admit that what we think is a mistake might be more of a mistake on our part at understanding the issue than a mistake by the prophet. I feel sorry for those who spend a lot of time trying to find faults in the prophets as when they are judged by God, God may decide to search their lives and find all the faults they had as well. I think people would spend less time on faults if the Church and its culture set realistic expectations. Frankly we don't. It is when one's narrative or theology shifts drastically that one considers focusing on the details that suddenly seem to be apparent that no one else seems to be aware of
Senator Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 I think the vast majority of the problem is enemies of the Church ascribing problems that don't exist. Polyandry, MMM, racism, and the whole drill. Now there's the best apologetic yet! Problem? Where? What problem? I don't see any problem........... 3
ERayR Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 I think people would spend less time on faults if the Church and its culture set realistic expectations. Frankly we don't. It is when one's narrative or theology shifts drastically that one considers focusing on the details that suddenly seem to be apparent that no one else seems to be aware of You don't think one can become like God and Christ? If nothing is expected then nothing is what you get. 2
ERayR Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Now there's the best apologetic yet! Problem? Where? What problem? I don't see any problem........... Oh I am sure from your POV you have much to complain about. 1
stemelbow Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Oh I am sure from your POV you have much to complain about. Identifying problems isn't complaining.
ERayR Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Identifying problems isn't complaining. To you it may be a problem. To others not so much and to still others not at all. 1
Senator Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Oh I am sure from your POV you have much to complain about. Please tell me what my POV is? You obviously know.
Recommended Posts