Are The Essays Backfiring?

[DBMormon]

Interesting. Out of curiosity, about how many such emails have you received in the past year?

I have gotten a few hundred in the past year but most simply say thank you for helping them.  About 20 have gone into the reasons why they fell into a faith crisis and about half of those say the essays were a major contributor

[stemelbow]

I'm not sure how the essays could be said to be backfiring or not. It'll always be that people will hear about that which they don't like and end up leaving. It was before the essays and it'll be after. I'm not sure the essays were created in an effort to keep people in so much as an effort to address the issue of the Church hiding information, or not addressing difficult issues. I'm happily looking forward to the day when the Church sticks with the message, "you know what? The facts are the facts. The history of our church is our history. The problems areas are real. Here is information. take it in, learn from it, be a part of us. Help us out. In this, we realize cans of worms are opened. that's how life goes. We're sorry for any hurt and pain anyone has to go through, but we're better off sticking with fact or as closely to fact as possible. We each need to make our own evaluations in life and we're each better off making those evaluations with good hard solid information and places where we have open dialogue about what really concerns us. Here we are. Let the chips fall where they may."

I'm not sure the essays get the Church to that message, but they represent a step to me.

[The Nehor]

CFR for where I said this was an unbiased survey.  You don't seem insecure at all.

CFR for where I said you said this was an unbiased survey.

If I was insecure I would have been more insulting and made vague accusations about your insecurity to project this failing on others. Watch out for those people.

[Robert F. Smith]

This is what I mean by infallibility.

Avatar is speaking of relative coherence, not infallibility.  Saying that something is "more and more perfect" would be illogical otherwise.  Naturally there are yokels both inside and outside of Mormonism who speak loosely in such terms, but they are in no sense spokesmen for an entire faith, and merely reveal their extraordinary ignorance about theological coherence and meaning.

 

There are many members who think that the prophets have never erred when it comes to doctrine, policy, or pretty much anything as it relates to the church.  Interestingly, while I was never taught that, say, Pres. Monson is perfect, I've been told repeatedly that the "Church is perfect."

I have never heard any Mormon claim that the Church is perfect.  They often say that the Church is true, i.e., that it is God's chosen vehicle to manage the Kingdom of God on Earth, but none I have ever met claim it to be perfect, nor that its leaders are perfect.  Indeed, those who believe that have set themselves up for a big letdown and consequent loss of faith.  Such ridiculous belief is part of the high road to apostasy.

 

So what happens when a member ............................................ have a hard time coming to grips with the whole "several months before her 15th birthday" thing?

Presentism dominates the minds of most people, and they have a very hard time getting their head around the fact that people in the past did not live by every single cultural attribute which we consider normal and acceptable today.  Trained historians and anthropologists have less of a problem because they have been introduced to a wide array of lifeways.  They also bring perspective based on wide reading of ancient texts.  That doesn't mean that scholars necessarily approve of every odd practice anciently, but it enables them to place such practices in proper context, rather than being overly judgmental.

 

For someone raised outside of the Church, this has never bothered me very much at all.  Because I grew up reading a Bible FULL of imperfect prophets. If Peter could walk with Christ every day for three years, see him perform countless miracles, actual walk on water himself and still deny Christ three times, then I wouldn't put anything past anyone.  Yet, time and again, we have debates on this board where people try to prove the most questionable of assertions (e.g., the propriety of publicly denying polygamy while privately practicing it, that all 30-something men in the 1840s were marrying 14 yo girls, that God was racist until 1978, etc.).

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth now, Newby.  On the one hand you speak of a Bible full of fallible prophets (the very same Bible Mormons read), and of how you are untroubled by it all.  Then you bitterly complain about modern people being fallible, and you castigate them for it -- while claiming that anyone calling attention descriptively to the facts is suddenly trying to justify the indefensible.  You may not particularly like the personal practices of the biblical Patriarchs (slave-holding polygynists who didn't bathe regularly), nor of people living in the early 19th century, but God does not judge them on the same shallow basis used by us in the 21st century.  You need to develop a better sense of perspective.

 

And don't get me wrong.  If someone has a "testimony" of these things through faith, that's fine.  But many would claim that such beliefs are actually necessary for one to be a "real Mormon."

Utter hogwash.  I know of no such claim, and we all need a dose of anthropological reality, rather than continued diatribes based on straw-man claims.

 

This is a unique proposition amongst Christians.  One need not believe in a global flood to be a Baptist (not all Baptists even believe in the necessity of baptism).  Nor need one believe that Samson actually killed 1,000 men (not 999, not just a whole bunch, but actually 1,000 exactly) to be a Methodist.  One need not believe that Martin Luther's statements about Jews were defensible or that his bigamy exception for Philip of Hesse was doctrinally proper to be a Lutheran.  In other words, you can actually belong to a church named after a man that you believe to have made mistakes, in both matters of morality and doctrine.

Of course, but so what?  It took centuries for the Lutherans to finally reject Luther's horrific anti Jewish comments, and the same applies to Baptists finally apologizing for their racism and their 19th century defense of slavery.

 

The rest of Christianity has somehow figured out that faith in Christ does not require blind faith in His servants.  That, to paraphrase Pres. Uchtdorf, "Heavenly Father works through imperfect men, because that's all he has to work with."  In fact, to my knowledge, even Mormon apologists aren't trying to excuse Noah's drunkenness as being "normal for the times" or "necessary for the protection of his family."  We simply accept that Noah could be both the most righteous man of his day and still have a few issues.

Both Noah and Joseph Smith were drinkers and enjoyed it.  So what?  I know of no Mormons who exercise blind faith in their leaders.  There may indeed be such dolts, which may be why Dieter felt it necessary to repeat the obvious.  Moreover, why would it be wrong to point out that drinking and getting drunk was normal for certain times and places?  Would you be offended if you knew that Joseph had gotten drunk?  I wouldn't.  Mormons I know would be very comfortable with your statement that "We simply accept that Noah could be both the most righteous man of his day and still have a few issues."  So, why the hit at supposed "apologists"?

 

So what is it about Mormonism that requires the notion of prophet infallibility (even if we won't admit to believing in it)?

This is not only heresy from an LDS theological viewpoint, but I don't know any Mormons who believe such nonsense.

 

Other than Pres. Woodruff's desperate assertion in OD1 that "If I'm lying, may God strike me down," what else requires the prophets to be perfect?  We admit that we see through a glass darkly.  We admit that there is more to be revealed.  We admit that Zion has not been perfected.  So what prevents us from admitting that maybe, just maybe, kinda possibly that once (or maybe even twice) a Church leader was just a "smidgeon" off on a revelation or policy?  Does that possibility cancel the Restoration?  Does it negate all of our sacred ordinances?  Does it negate the crucifixion, resurrection and the atonement?

 

You are jousting at windmills, Newby. You may be just as sincere as Don Quixote, but you are equally mistaken.

Who on this board are you addressing this to? Name him. Or her. Seems more to me more like your rhetorical flourishes are based on some level of frustration based in turn on having come into Mormonism from a very non-Mormon environment -- and still carrying excess baggage.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[The Nehor]

How much imperfection is allowed? I'm not talking about character flaws, but about doctrine.

The line for what is allowed stops before the prophet leading the people to hell instead of heaven. It might stop before then. You would have to check with God for further details.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have gotten a few hundred in the past year but most simply say thank you for helping them.  About 20 have gone into the reasons why they fell into a faith crisis and about half of those say the essays were a major contributor

 

I'm not sure how the essays could be said to be backfiring or not. It'll always be that people will hear about that which they don't like and end up leaving. It was before the essays and it'll be after. I'm not sure the essays were created in an effort to keep people in so much as an effort to address the issue of the Church hiding information, or not addressing difficult issues. I'm happily looking forward to the day when the Church sticks with the message, "you know what? The facts are the facts. The history of our church is our history. The problems areas are real. Here is information. take it in, learn from it, be a part of us. Help us out. In this, we realize cans of worms are opened. that's how life goes. We're sorry for any hurt and pain anyone has to go through, but we're better off sticking with fact or as closely to fact as possible. We each need to make our own evaluations in life and we're each better off making those evaluations with good hard solid information and places where we have open dialogue about what really concerns us. Here we are. Let the chips fall where they may."

I'm not sure the essays get the Church to that message, but they represent a step to me.

You are both right on target.  Well said.

[Gray]

I don't have enough information to even guess

[Thinking]

I have never heard any Mormon claim that the Church is perfect.  They often say that the Church is true, i.e., that it is God's chosen vehicle to manage the Kingdom of God on Earth, but none I have ever met claim it to be perfect, nor that its leaders are perfect.  Indeed, those who believe that have set themselves up for a big letdown and consequent loss of faith.  Such ridiculous belief is part of the high road to apostasy.

 

I heard it many times. Here is an example from the question and answers section of the December 2000 Liahona. "The doctrine of the Church is perfect, but we are not." Link

 

Neal A. Maxwell: "even though the Church is perfect in its doctrine and its divine leadership, it is filled with imperfect people like you and me" Link

[stemelbow]

I heard it many times. Here is an example from the question and answers section of the December 2000 Liahona. "The doctrine of the Church is perfect, but we are not." Link

 

Neal A. Maxwell: "even though the Church is perfect in its doctrine and its divine leadership, it is filled with imperfect people like you and me" Link

It's a pretty common phrase in the Church - "the Church is perfect, the people are not". It is usually said in response to stories wherein a members says or does something dumb.

[Gray]

It's a pretty common phrase in the Church - "the Church is perfect, the people are not". It is usually said in response to stories wherein a members says or does something dumb.

 

Which is something like saying, the machine is perfect, its components are not. Doesn't really make sense 

[omni]

I think that it is interesting that the lds church should be in the history business. I know of no other church that is in the history business. .

I don't know of many (if any) other churches that focus as much on their history as we do. We can learn just as much from the bad as we can from the good.

[mormonnewb]

Avatar is speaking of relative coherence, not infallibility.  Saying that something is "more and more perfect" would be illogical otherwise.  Naturally there are yokels both inside and outside of Mormonism who speak loosely in such terms, but they are in no sense spokesmen for an entire faith, and merely reveal their extraordinary ignorance about theological coherence and meaning.

 

I have never heard any Mormon claim that the Church is perfect.  They often say that the Church is true, i.e., that it is God's chosen vehicle to manage the Kingdom of God on Earth, but none I have ever met claim it to be perfect, nor that its leaders are perfect.  Indeed, those who believe that have set themselves up for a big letdown and consequent loss of faith.  Such ridiculous belief is part of the high road to apostasy.

 

I think this issue was sufficiently answered by others.  I didn't make up the phrase that "the church is perfect, but the people are not." 

 

Presentism dominates the minds of most people, and they have a very hard time getting their head around the fact that people in the past did not live by every single cultural attribute which we consider normal and acceptable today.  Trained historians and anthropologists have less of a problem because they have been introduced to a wide array of lifeways.  They also bring perspective based on wide reading of ancient texts.  That doesn't mean that scholars necessarily approve of every odd practice anciently, but it enables them to place such practices in proper context, rather than being overly judgmental.

 

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth now, Newby.  On the one hand you speak of a Bible full of fallible prophets (the very same Bible Mormons read), and of how you are untroubled by it all.  Then you bitterly complain about modern people being fallible, and you castigate them for it -- while claiming that anyone calling attention descriptively to the facts is suddenly trying to justify the indefensible.  You may not particularly like the personal practices of the biblical Patriarchs (slave-holding polygynists who didn't bathe regularly), nor of people living in the early 19th century, but God does not judge them on the same shallow basis used by us in the 21st century.  You need to develop a better sense of perspective.

 

Here is where you make my point for me.  Rather than trying to justify past practices and actions by claims of "presentism" or "lacking perspective," I'm perfectly capable of holding these two ideas in my mind simultaneously -- (1) JS was a prophet of God; and (2) JS was dead wrong when it came to polygamy.  I understand how others could come to a different conclusion in regards to the second point, but I believe there are many saints that consider the two statements to be contradictory.  My original point was (and still is), what about the Biblical record would give anyone the perception that prophets aren't capable of egregious error? 

 

Utter hogwash.  I know of no such claim, and we all need a dose of anthropological reality, rather than continued diatribes based on straw-man claims.

 

Of course, but so what?  It took centuries for the Lutherans to finally reject Luther's horrific anti Jewish comments, and the same applies to Baptists finally apologizing for their racism and their 19th century defense of slavery.

 

Both Noah and Joseph Smith were drinkers and enjoyed it.  So what?  I know of no Mormons who exercise blind faith in their leaders.  There may indeed be such dolts, which may be why Dieter felt it necessary to repeat the obvious.  Moreover, why would it be wrong to point out that drinking and getting drunk was normal for certain times and places?  Would you be offended if you knew that Joseph had gotten drunk?  I wouldn't.  Mormons I know would be very comfortable with your statement that "We simply accept that Noah could be both the most righteous man of his day and still have a few issues."  So, why the hit at supposed "apologists"?

 

This is not only heresy from an LDS theological viewpoint, but I don't know any Mormons who believe such nonsense.

 

 

You are jousting at windmills, Newby. You may be just as sincere as Don Quixote, but you are equally mistaken.

Who on this board are you addressing this to? Name him. Or her. Seems more to me more like your rhetorical flourishes are based on some level of frustration based in turn on having come into Mormonism from a very non-Mormon environment -- and still carrying excess baggage.

 

As for your claims that I am falsely attributing a belief in prophet infallibility to the saints, I can only ask, "Have you read any other thread on this board?"  There are some posters on this board who constantly remind the rest of us that "the Lord is in charge of His Church" and that we should NEVER question any decision (past or present) because "the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead the Church astray."  (And no, I'm not making up these statements either)  By the way, this is the very definition of infallibility.  Sure, no one is claiming that President Monson never mis-dialed a phone number or failed to say "Bless you" after someone sneezed.  Yet, there are many who would claim that, in his role as a prophet, he has NEVER erred in correctly interpreting the will of God.  In fact, I'll give you a shiny new nickel if Scott Lloyd (you asked for specific references) will simply list ONE time when a Church leader, past or present, has ever, even once, been mistaken on a matter of church doctrine or policy.  If I were you, I wouldn't go spending that nickel quite yet, because as much as Scott would love to prove me wrong, he isn't about to admit that his "imperfect" leaders have ever been anything but perfect in their actions as apostles.

 

I realize that, in my zeal, I am capable of hyperbole, straw-man making and various logical fallacies, but I don't think that any of these apply in this case.  A great many saints are raised with the idea that our prophets are infallible in their actions as apostles and that they are without significant fault or blemish.  And they have every reason to come to this conclusion because it is taught explicitly.  Here are some statements from an essay from Elder Oaks on lds.org entitled Joseph, the Man and the Prophet:

 

 

 

In a sermon preached a little over a month before [Joseph Smith] was martyred, he declared, “I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught” (The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369).

 

 

 

 

 

"Independent of that decree, as one who has examined the hundreds of pages of allegations and evidence in these proceedings, I testify to the Prophet’s innocence of the charges against him." [speaking of the various charges of financial fraud levied against JS]

 

 

 

“I testify before God, angels, and men, that he was a good, honorable, virtuous man … —that his private and public character was unimpeachable—and that he lived and died as a man of God” (The Gospel Kingdom, [1987], 355; see also D&C 135:3). Brigham Young declared: “I do not think that a man lives on the earth that knew [Joseph Smith] any better than I did; and I am bold to say that, Jesus Christ excepted, no better man ever lived or does live upon this earth” (in Journal of Discourses,9:332).

 

It is not my intention to re-litigate any of these issues, but rather to simply assert that it should be possible to have a testimony of this Church and dispute any of the three above propositions (i.e., JS' perfection in receiving revelation, JS' innocence of all charges brought against him by others, JS' unimpeachable character).  No other Biblical prophet measures up to this standard, so why must the prophet of the Restoration?

Edited June 15, 2015 by mormonnewb

[cinepro]

The subject of "prophetic infallibility" came to mind in EQ yesterday.  The lesson was from the Ezra T. Benson book, and based on his 14 Fundamentals talk.  Among other things, here is what is being taught throughout the Church in the Priesthood and RS lessons:

 

This Church is not being directed by the wisdom of men. I know that. The power and influence of Almighty God are directing His Church.11

 

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling.

 

We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.

 

… The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.)

 

The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man.

 

...As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people.

 

The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

 

President Wilford Woodruff stated: “I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God” [see Teachings of Presidents

of the Church: Wilford Woodruff (2004), 199].

 

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

 

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)²⁰

 

Fallible personal opinions indeed.

[Gray]

We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.

 

Dr. Lowry Nelson's correspondence with the First Presidency should be enough to show how wrong-headed this notion is. 

Edited June 15, 2015 by Gray

[CV75]

Which is something like saying, the machine is perfect, its components are not. Doesn't really make sense 

I’d say more like, “…the machine is as perfect as it needs to be for now (D&C 107--compare “church” in verse 18 and “church of the Firstborn” in 19); its Driver is perfect (for example, see “my church” in D&C 20, 42, 124); but its passengers are not (see D&C 1:17-30) and the dictated Driver’s instructions may contain the “mistakes of men” (see Title Page of the Book of Mormon), but He hasn’t stopped the vehicle.”

 

I don’t see how this has anything to do with demonstrating that the essays are not fulfilling their stated purpose.

[stemelbow]

Dr. Lowry Nelson's correspondence with the First Presidency should be enough to show how wrong-headed this notion is.

I brought up his situation yesterday, much to the chagrin of my fellow quorum members. They wanted so badly to end the story with a "yeah but the leaders were right and Nelson was wrong," Kinda like how Scott did to me last week when we discussed. But feeling a bit frustrated because they didn't know the story, I gave them a reference as I found on my phone hoping they will look into it.

My point was left un-touched, though. members can contribute to this whole pool of learning, understanding and dialogue that the Church should be, but is not. Everyone hates it when I say stuff like that though.

[Gray]

I’d say more like, “…the machine is as perfect as it needs to be for now (D&C 107--compare “church” in verse 18 and “church of the Firstborn” in 19); its Driver is perfect (for example, see “my church” in D&C 20, 42, 124); but its passengers are not (see D&C 1:17-30) and the dictated Driver’s instructions may contain the “mistakes of men” (see Title Page of the Book of Mormon), but He hasn’t stopped the vehicle.”

 

I don’t see how this has anything to do with demonstrating that the essays are not fulfilling their stated purpose.

 

"As perfect as it needs to be." Doesn't that just mean adequate? 

[Gray]

I brought up his situation yesterday, much to the chagrin of my fellow quorum members. They wanted so badly to end the story with a "yeah but the leaders were right and Nelson was wrong," Kinda like how Scott did to me last week when we discussed. But feeling a bit frustrated because they didn't know the story, I gave them a reference as I found on my phone hoping they will look into it.

My point was left un-touched, though. members can contribute to this whole pool of learning, understanding and dialogue that the Church should be, but is not. Everyone hates it when I say stuff like that though.

 

It's difficult for many people to wrap their heads around prophets or apostles not being inhuman supermen. It's just built into what we're raised with. 

[CV75]

"As perfect as it needs to be." Doesn't that just mean adequate? 

Not at all. Perfect is not as it doesn't need to be (see D&C 10: 68; 93: 25; 98: 7; 124: 120).

[CV75]

It's difficult for many people to wrap their heads around prophets or apostles not being inhuman supermen. It's just built into what we're raised with. 

And you have trouble with them being as perfect as they need to be? LOL

[BlueDreams]

I put down no. But to be fair, I'm only thinking of the one gospel topic that most of those I know actually care about: race and the priesthood. I haven't had any discussions about the polygamy ones and have only seen them discussed here. so I have no idea on that note. But on the race on, I can think of 2 people that have read this and had some struggle. One I don't actually know, but just heard from from my College Chair. The other was from a class where we read this. But it wasn't like his faith went crumbling, it was more like was BB mentioned, and it was just and adjustment of thought. The other was more difficult because the person had had to teach and justify the policy and come to beliefs about it that were not in line with the article.

 

I put down no, though, because for so many more this article was a breath of fresh air. It was like having an official document to something most of us knew, but was not "mainstream" in views. So it could only be our opinions that this was wrong. For others it was being able to find more closure to a topic that didn't make a lot of sense in the first place. Of course most of the people I'm talking about are people of color or strong white allies when it comes to racial issues. 

 

It was surprising to think of this as backfiring. At least for that one article, it was a further relief to a burden. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Gray]

And you have trouble with them being as perfect as they need to be? LOL

 

Perfect is a pretty binary term - either you are or you aren't. I don't think the grammar of your sentence really makes sense 

Edited June 15, 2015 by Gray

[The Nehor]

Which is something like saying, the machine is perfect, its components are not. Doesn't really make sense

More like saying the blueprints are perfect but the manufacturer only got substandard parts to build the machine with.

[CV75]

Perfect is a pretty binary term - either you are or you aren't. I don't think the grammar of your sentence really makes sense 

Not according to Alma 32: 33-36. “…ye must needs know that the seed is good… Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing… is your knowledge perfect? Behold I say unto you, Nay…” But it is perfect enough to continue nourishing the seed and the stages of its growth into a tree of everlasting light (37-onward).

 

And not according to 3 Nephi 12:48, which if used as a binary term, eradicates the principle of grace (Moroni 10:32-33; 2 Nephi 31:20).

 

Alma 50:37 attests a fallible human being as being perfectly upright, and Alma 27:27 attests to an entire fallible people being perfectly honest and upright in all things. Evil men in Jacob 7:4 and Alma 55:1 were also perfect in their knowledge of certain things—but hardly as perfect as Perdition!

 

The degrees of glory are also considered degrees of perfection, especially when they are inhabited by souls with “perfect frames.”

 

So it does seem the Church is perfect enough for anyone, including the Lord.

[Gray]

More like saying the blueprints are perfect but the manufacturer only got substandard parts to build the machine with.

 

Blueprints = gospel? 

 

In which case, in theory the blueprints are perfect but we only got a substandard copy of them