Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

Posted

It doesn't mean God doesn't have a problem with it either. That's not really the point. The point is, do problems exist? Sure they do.

 

And my point is who gets to decide what is or is not a problem.  Just because you have a problem with something does not make it a real problem.

Posted

And my point is who gets to decide what is or is not a problem.  Just because you have a problem with something does not make it a real problem.

uh...a problem is a problem. "A real problem"? Not sure what you mean. God suffers us, it seems to me, to go through problems and have to deal with them. They exist, and we're told, for a reason.

Posted

Or maybe it is. " it is just facing the reality and not ignoring some very obvious things.."  You see that could be the view from both directions.

I agree..which is why it is possible that truth is elusive to all of us.

Posted (edited)

My question is why does anyone want to point out the mistakes of others and make a bigger deal of it than needs to be? Would you want someone analyzing everything you've done or said and pointing out the mistakes. That being said some so-called mistakes are matters of interpretation or disagreement and not actual errors.

 

I find myself asking this same question constantly in gospel doctrine. Why do we spend so much time talking about Peter's denial, Lucifer's betrayal, Laman and Lemuel's challenges, or Thomas B. Marsh's milk strippings? Really, what's the point?

 

One answer for me is that pointing out mistakes may be necessary in order to counter an argument that a certain person never makes a mistake. As an example, suppose that I lost my temper once and hit one of my children. Over time, and with apologies, my wife and children forgive me. A fews years later I start to get heated again at one of my kids, my wife says "hunny calm down," and I respond, "don't worry, I've never hit one of them and I never will." Well, at that point she would be justified in mentioning that I had hit a child before. Not to drudge up the past, but simply to tamp down my over-confidence.

 

For me, that's primary reason I bring up the faults of Joseph, Brigham and other church leaders. It's not that I particularly enjoy discussing such themes, but I find it necessary in order to counter the church culture of leader worship and pervasive belief that leaders cannot lead us astray.

Edited by Buckeye
Posted

 

For me, that's primary reason I bring up the faults of Joseph, Brigham and other church leaders. It's not that I particularly enjoy discussing such themes, but I find it necessary in order to counter the church culture of leader worship and pervasive belief that leaders cannot lead us astray.

 

Except that many who point out such faults are doing it bring criticism on the church as a whole and not learn from the mistakes of others. Yes, we can appreciate our leaders are human with flaws and recognize that we all have faults but pointing out the faith challenges of a Peter or Laman and Lemuel is not the same as nit-picking and criticizing decisions made when we don't know everything that went into those decisions or statements.

Posted (edited)

The church has become more open in discussing mistakes or incorrect doctrines that were taught by Prophets in the past. I think that's a good and necessary thing for them to do rather than to just keep saying things like "the Prophets will never lead you astray". However, I do believe they'll never publicly state that Joseph Smith was wrong or mistaken. Or are there examples where they have and I've just missed it?

Edited by JulieM
Posted

The church has become more open in discussing mistakes or incorrect doctrines that were taught by Prophets in the past. I think that's a good and necessary thing for them to do rather than to just keep saying things like "the Prophets will never lead you astray". However, I do believe they'll never publicly state that Joseph Smith was wrong or mistaken. Or are there examples where they have and I've just missed it?

 

JS himself claims to have been wrong and made mistakes, but not about the Revelations given to him by God.

Posted

uh...a problem is a problem. "A real problem"? Not sure what you mean. God suffers us, it seems to me, to go through problems and have to deal with them. They exist, and we're told, for a reason.

A problem is a problem only from a certain point of view.  What I see as problematic you may not see as problematic. 

Posted

I thought it was always said that the first step to apostasy was to question leaders?  Is this not contradictory to admitting that they are fallible in their callings?

 

Consider this from a quick search of lds.org

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35554_eng.pdf?lang=eng

 

search for "find fault" -- bottom of page 80.

 

“When a man begins to find fault, inquiring in regard to this, that, and the other, saying, ‘Does this or that look as though the Lord dictated it?‘  You may know that that person has more or less of the spirit of apostasy.”

Posted

I thought it was always said that the first step to apostasy was to question leaders?  Is this not contradictory to admitting that they are fallible in their callings?

 

Consider this from a quick search of lds.org

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35554_eng.pdf?lang=eng

 

search for "find fault" -- bottom of page 80.

 

“When a man begins to find fault, inquiring in regard to this, that, and the other, saying, ‘Does this or that look as though the Lord dictated it?‘  You may know that that person has more or less of the spirit of apostasy.”

 

We are supposed to get our own confirmation of what out leaders tell us. That is a different question than questioning the right of our leaders to lead.

SEE http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

Posted

I thought it was always said that the first step to apostasy was to question leaders?  Is this not contradictory to admitting that they are fallible in their callings?

 

Consider this from a quick search of lds.org

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35554_eng.pdf?lang=eng

 

search for "find fault" -- bottom of page 80.

 

“When a man begins to find fault, inquiring in regard to this, that, and the other, saying, ‘Does this or that look as though the Lord dictated it?‘  You may know that that person has more or less of the spirit of apostasy.”

 

I read the whole chapter and all I can say is WOW!

 

You're right. Whether or not the two statements are contradictory rides on a very fine line.

Posted

Thanks summerTimeSaint, I'd never heard that before.  Horrible article interesting interest by an outsider and the correction.

 

Well, kind of correction.  I believe that Lesson manual is not that old and still teaching the same thing to members of the church.

 

Or has that manual been retired?

Posted

Thanks summerTimeSaint, I'd never heard that before.  Horrible article interesting interest by an outsider and the correction.

 

Well, kind of correction.  I believe that Lesson manual is not that old and still teaching the same thing to members of the church.

 

Or has that manual been retired?

 

I'm a long time convert myself. For better or worse I've never felt the desire let alone need to accept anything on someone else's says so. Sister Kimble, wife of President Kimble used to say while she fought tooth and nail to accept instruction. President Kimble had no problem with it at all. I'm a more of a case of "Come let us reason together" type. So far there has been no issue that has caused me to reject my church leaders. Though I certainly have had differences of opinion on any number of subjects. There may come that time, but after 44 years in the Church that probably isn't going to happen.

Posted (edited)

Thanks summerTimeSaint, I'd never heard that before.  Horrible article interesting interest by an outsider and the correction.

 

Well, kind of correction.  I believe that Lesson manual is not that old and still teaching the same thing to members of the church.

 

Or has that manual been retired?

You mean the "Ward Teaching" article that appeared in the 1945 magazine, the Improvement Era?

Edited by calmoriah
Posted

I'm a more of a case of "Come let us reason together" type.

I sure do want to get here! A different topic but this is why I so dislike the correlated material, at least for EQ, HPG and RS!  It squelches the "Come let us reason together" part, leaving errors like this being presented.

So far there has been no issue that has caused me to reject my church leaders. Though I certainly have had differences of opinion on any number of subjects.

I think this concept was well pointed out in the Eternal Progression thread. I personally have no problem with this.

 

Posted (edited)

The Improvement Era was that day's Ensign which was retired around the beginning of the 70s.  That makes that article over 70 years old, iirc.

 

A site search of lds.org yields no hits for "the thinking has been done"

Edited by calmoriah
Posted

I keep getting told by ex-LDs folks that I should be listening to my leaders who have been telling me to not read material not authorized by the church. I keep asking for a list of specifics of what I can and cannot read. I can't stand the idea of being boxed in, following the leaders' every word. I need my mind open so any old piece of goodness can sweep in and take residence, I've decided. Any time I hear a leader suggest in any way I need to just listen and obey and follow, I giggle inside saying "no thanks." I try my best to be internally directed, with firm hope that God will lead me, personally.

That's not to say, of course, that leaders can't offer great insight, an interesting perspective, even council that is appropriate and good. They can. But that's being a leader, which they do quite well. I just don't see that as infallible work. I don't feel the slightest bit bad in questioning leader's thoughts sometimes.

Posted (edited)

 

I'm a more of a case of "Come let us reason together" type.

I sure do want to get here! A different topic but this is why I so dislike the correlated material, at least for EQ, HPG and RS!  It squelches the "Come let us reason together" part, leaving errors like this being presented.

So far there has been no issue that has caused me to reject my church leaders. Though I certainly have had differences of opinion on any number of subjects.

I think this concept was well pointed out in the Eternal Progression thread. I personally have no problem with this.

 

 

 

I've taught Elders Quorums and High Priest Group Meetings. But no Relief Society ones, :lol: I never strictly used only the manuals, but used whatever I thought promoted the theme of the lesson in them to help in our individual lives. More like a starting off point than an ending point.  As President Henry B. Eyring's Grandfather said to his son as he left for university "You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the Gospel". As Henry Eyring himself would later say "There are all kinds of contradiction in religion I don't understand, but I find the same kind of contradictions in science, and I haven't decided to apostatize from science.

SEE Reflections of a Scientist by Henry Eyring.

Edited by thesometimesaint
Posted

The Improvement Era was that day's Ensign which was retired around the beginning of the 70s.  That makes that article over 70 years old, iirc.

 

A site search of lds.org yields no hits for "the thinking has been done"

 

It was theSummertimeSaint that took us down this rabbit hole.  If you read the link he provided President George Albert Smith condemned the whole "the thinking has been done" shortly after that happened in a private letter to Dr. J. Raymond Cope, the leader of the First Unitarian Society.

 

Summertime posted that in response to my question/observation that the concept of questioning leaders was said to be the first step to apostasy, and the link/quote from what I believe is a manual in the HPG/EQ/RS rotation of teachings of the prophets

Posted

It was theSummertimeSaint that took us down this rabbit hole.  If you read the link he provided President George Albert Smith condemned the whole "the thinking has been done" shortly after that happened in a private letter to Dr. J. Raymond Cope, the leader of the First Unitarian Society.

 

Summertime posted that in response to my question/observation that the concept of questioning leaders was said to be the first step to apostasy, and the link/quote from what I believe is a manual in the HPG/EQ/RS rotation of teachings of the prophets

 

It's thesometimessaint, FYI. Are you anxious for summer? :)

Posted

summerTime,

 

I know there are good teachers and I hope a lot more since I've been.  Last Sunday HPG, we took turns reading out of the manual.

 

In the past I've had some good GD teachers but HPG was typical of last Sunday.

Posted (edited)

It's thesometimessaint, FYI. Are you anxious for summer? :)

 

In social I found him sunny and could not view him as a some time saint ... pure gold that summerTime

 

btw, who are you Gray?

 

eta, if you hate that, I will quit

Edited by CCRW
Posted

btw, all I'm suggesting with the whole first step to apostasy is that ... dang, I want to use stereotypes here, but I know they are offensive  to some ... I'd suggest that for members that don't read outside of Sunday teachers/student manuals would tell you that to question is the first step ...

 

Also, I can see that my ward is mostly individuals which would agree about the first step.  Peer pressure keeps the reasoning pretty close to the manual.

Posted (edited)

btw, all I'm suggesting with the whole first step to apostasy is that ... dang, I want to use stereotypes here, but I know they are offensive  to some ... I'd suggest that for members that don't read outside of Sunday teachers/student manuals would tell you that to question is the first step ...

 

Also, I can see that my ward is mostly individuals which would agree about the first step.  Peer pressure keeps the reasoning pretty close to the manual.

And yet, members are criticized when all they know is what has been taught in lessons on Sunday or from talks in General Conference.  I know there are many members on here who are scholars or who have at least studied and read outside the lesson materials, but I believe most members (or at least many) have not.  

Edited by ALarson
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...