Arguing The Church Is At Fault For The Sins Of Its Members

[KevinG]

In discussions and forums some cite examples of Saints behaving badly in order to critique church doctrines.  Supremely ironic is the when those examples are used to criticize the very programs and doctrines designed to prevent the sin and abuse.

 

For example:

 

- People breaking the law of chastity used as an example of why the law of chastity is too restrictive or causes rebellion.

 

- Priesthood holders exercising unrighteous dominion that is expressly forbidden by the doctrines on the priesthood being used as a criticism of the priesthood.

 

- Temple sealing practices being blamed for the confusion and pain of people failing to honor their spouse or children.

 

I'm sure Satan is thrilled to have Saints break their own laws so the charge of hypocrisy can be raised to the rafters...  but it is a very poor critique of a program to cite failure to obey the law, as a justification against that law.

 

 

 

[bluebell]

It's kind of like being called a hypocrite because your child lied, even though you have repeatedly told them not to lie.

[jkwilliams]

So, everything I've ever done wrong is the church's fault? Cool.

Edited October 27, 2015 by jkwilliams

[KevinG]

So, everything I've ever done wrong is the church's fault? Cool.

 

It would seem that way.  Welcome to the new century of "It's someone else's fault, and that offends me."

[HappyJackWagon]

In discussions and forums some cite examples of Saints behaving badly in order to critique church doctrines.  Supremely ironic is the when those examples are used to criticize the very programs and doctrines designed to prevent the sin and abuse.

 

For example:

 

- People breaking the law of chastity used as an example of why the law of chastity is too restrictive or causes rebellion.

 

- Priesthood holders exercising unrighteous dominion that is expressly forbidden by the doctrines on the priesthood being used as a criticism of the priesthood.

 

- Temple sealing practices being blamed for the confusion and pain of people failing to honor their spouse or children.

 

I'm sure Satan is thrilled to have Saints break their own laws so the charge of hypocrisy can be raised to the rafters...  but it is a very poor critique of a program to cite failure to obey the law, as a justification against that law.

What you repeatedly fail to recognize is how institutional policies can hurt people. When those institutional policies cite a doctrine such as priesthood to explain why something MUST be a certain way, yet that certain way causes harm to some people, then it is a reasonable step to question the accuracy of the doctrine. 

 

For example, if one is claiming that the order of the priesthood unfairly places all power in the hands of only men and boys, sometimes at the expense of women, then it is reasonable to discuss why this is the case. Answering with "because the priesthood doctrine says so" isn't always a satisfying response. WHY does the doctrine say so? Is it the direct will of God that it function this way or are there elements of culture and tradition that influence our understanding of the doctrine?

[jkwilliams]

It would seem that way.  Welcome to the new century of "It's someone else's fault, and that offends me."

I can see criticizing the church for bad things that are direct results of church doctrine or policy. IMO, there is an inordinate use of shame and guilt to motivate behavior, and that has had the predictable result that a lot of people feel an inordinate amount of shame and guilt.

[KevinG]

What you repeatedly fail to recognize is how institutional policies can hurt people. When those institutional policies cite a doctrine such as priesthood to explain why something MUST be a certain way, yet that certain way causes harm to some people, then it is a reasonable step to question the accuracy of the doctrine. 

 

For example, if one is claiming that the order of the priesthood unfairly places all power in the hands of only men and boys, sometimes at the expense of women, then it is reasonable to discuss why this is the case. Answering with "because the priesthood doctrine says so" isn't always a satisfying response. WHY does the doctrine say so? Is it the direct will of God that it function this way or are there elements of culture and tradition that influence our understanding of the doctrine?

 

Give me a real example of an institutional policy in the LDS church that hurts people more than it helps.  

 

I.E. Provide real examples of how priesthood power when properly exercised is at the expense of women.

 

For your information I have never used the excuse "because God said so" as a justification for unrighteous dominion, and I have already repeatedly demonstrated using D&C 121 how that is a direct violation of the Priesthood.   

[KevinG]

I can see criticizing the church for bad things that are direct results of church doctrine or policy. IMO, there is an inordinate use of shame and guilt to motivate behavior, and that has had the predictable result that a lot of people feel an inordinate amount of shame and guilt.

 

Again, please provide a real world example of a church policy that harms more people than it helps.  We can discuss that rationally not just paint the church as false or destructive because its members sin and err.

[jkwilliams]

Again, please provide a real world example of a church policy that harms more people than it helps.  We can discuss that rationally not just paint the church as false or destructive because its members sin and err.

I gave an example and certainly didn't paint the church as false or destructive. I think it's obvious that shame and guilt are used as motivational tools at every level of the church, and I think it's had some very harmful effects on a lot of people, though perhaps it works for some people. I don't know many such people, but YMMV.

[HappyJackWagon]

Give me a real example of an institutional policy in the LDS church that hurts people more than it helps.  

 

I.E. Provide real examples of how priesthood power when properly exercised is at the expense of women.

 

For your information I have never used the excuse "because God said so" as a justification for unrighteous dominion, and I have already repeatedly demonstrated using D&C 121 how that is a direct violation of the Priesthood.   

You continue to move the goal posts.

 

I said they hurt people. I didn't say they hurt people more than they help because that would be unproveable. A practice or policy could work very well for some people while not working well for others just like segregation worked well for some and not for others.

[sethpayne]

In discussions and forums some cite examples of Saints behaving badly in order to critique church doctrines.  Supremely ironic is the when those examples are used to criticize the very programs and doctrines designed to prevent the sin and abuse.

 

For example:

 

- People breaking the law of chastity used as an example of why the law of chastity is too restrictive or causes rebellion.

 

- Priesthood holders exercising unrighteous dominion that is expressly forbidden by the doctrines on the priesthood being used as a criticism of the priesthood.

 

- Temple sealing practices being blamed for the confusion and pain of people failing to honor their spouse or children.

 

I'm sure Satan is thrilled to have Saints break their own laws so the charge of hypocrisy can be raised to the rafters...  but it is a very poor critique of a program to cite failure to obey the law, as a justification against that law.

 

Kevin.  I think you make interesting points.

 

But by the same token, good behavior or attributes of the Saints should not be used to promote the LDS Church.  We can't have it both ways.

[jkwilliams]

You continue to move the goal posts.

 

I said they hurt people. I didn't say they hurt people more than they help because that would be unproveable. A practice or policy could work very well for some people while not working well for others just like segregation worked well for some and not for others.

Which one of us should be worried that we're thinking the same things?

[KevinG]

I gave an example and certainly didn't paint the church as false or destructive. I think it's obvious that shame and guilt are used as motivational tools at every level of the church, and I think it's had some very harmful effects on a lot of people, though perhaps it works for some people. I don't know many such people, but YMMV.

 

I'm waiting for you to show me the doctrine or church policy that says people should be shamed to motivate them.  NOT an example of our culture or people being ill or sinful.  That is exactly the type of critique I started this thread to ferret out.

 

I believe that is called throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

If something destructive is endemic to our practices and doctrines, then we should definitely root it out and improve.

[KevinG]

Kevin.  I think you make interesting points.

 

But by the same token, good behavior or attributes of the Saints should not be used to promote the LDS Church.  We can't have it both ways.

 

I agree whole heatedly.

 

I cringe every time we put a football hero, or politician on stage as an example of a great Saint.  

 

I don't want it either way.

 

We should judge the Gospel by its fruits, not the Saints by their celebrities by their public accomplishments.  

[jkwilliams]

I'm waiting for you to show me the doctrine or church policy that says people should be shamed to motivate them.  NOT an example of our culture or people being ill or sinful.  That is exactly the type of critique I started this thread to ferret out.

 

I believe that is called throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

If something destructive is endemic to our practices and doctrines, then we should definitely root it out and improve.

That's the thing: I don't believe too many people in the church, from the leadership on down, believe that using shame and guilt is destructive. I wouldn't even know where to begin in finding examples all through church manuals, conference addresses, and so on. Maybe if I have a couple of hours later, I might be able to come up with a representative list.

[KevinG]

You continue to move the goal posts.

 

I said they hurt people. I didn't say they hurt people more than they help because that would be unproveable. A practice or policy could work very well for some people while not working well for others just like segregation worked well for some and not for others.

 

Fine:

 

Remove the word more...  and show me a church practice or policy that creates harm.  We can discuss how to adapt or change that policy all day long.

 

But blaming the priesthood as harmful by using people who fail to honor their priesthood as an example is wrong.

[HappyJackWagon]

I agree whole heatedly.

 

I cringe every time we put a football hero, or politician on stage as an example of a great Saint.  

 

I don't want it either way.

 

We should judge the Gospel by its fruits, not the Saints by their celebrities by their public accomplishments.  

So what are these fruits by which we should be judging? Should we only judge by the good fruits or should we also judge by the bad fruits, which you seem to be saying don't really matter.

[stemelbow]

In discussions and forums some cite examples of Saints behaving badly in order to critique church doctrines.  Supremely ironic is the when those examples are used to criticize the very programs and doctrines designed to prevent the sin and abuse.

 

For example:

 

- People breaking the law of chastity used as an example of why the law of chastity is too restrictive or causes rebellion.

 

- Priesthood holders exercising unrighteous dominion that is expressly forbidden by the doctrines on the priesthood being used as a criticism of the priesthood.

 

- Temple sealing practices being blamed for the confusion and pain of people failing to honor their spouse or children.

 

I'm sure Satan is thrilled to have Saints break their own laws so the charge of hypocrisy can be raised to the rafters...  but it is a very poor critique of a program to cite failure to obey the law, as a justification against that law.

I think it's likely that when someone wants to blame "the Church" for some of these things, they aren't blaming the doctrine and policies, so much as the culture of the Church that can support the types of things you mention.

Be that as it may, I'm not sure these offer very good examples of how the Church contributes to the difficulty of some people. It'd be wise for the Church to learn to accept it's part in the problems people face, if and when the Church has a part in them. It just doesn't seem likely that is going to happen, sadly.

[KevinG]

That's the thing: I don't believe too many people in the church, from the leadership on down, believe that using shame and guilt is destructive. I wouldn't even know where to begin in finding examples all through church manuals, conference addresses, and so on. Maybe if I have a couple of hours later, I might be able to come up with a representative list.

 

I can check back in a few weeks if you like.

 

But my OP was on people blaming church doctrine and policy for harm, while using those who do not follow the doctrines and policy as examples.

 

That is called an exception fallacy.

[stemelbow]

Fine:

 

Remove the word more...  and show me a church practice or policy that creates harm.  We can discuss how to adapt or change that policy all day long.

 

But blaming the priesthood as harmful by using people who fail to honor their priesthood as an example is wrong.

It's wrong if we can say with all confidence that those who don't honor their priesthood don't feel like they were taught to do so by the Church.

[jkwilliams]

I can check back in a few weeks if you like.

 

But my OP was on people blaming church doctrine and policy for harm, while using those who do not follow the doctrines and policy as examples.

 

That is called an exception fallacy.

Well, that is not what I was talking about. As I said, I think it's fine to discuss harmful teachings and practices in any organization and give examples.

[KevinG]

So what are these fruits by which we should be judging? Should we only judge by the good fruits or should we also judge by the bad fruits, which you seem to be saying don't really matter.

 

Put very simply:  Don't blame the church for the harm (bad fruits) caused by those who do not follow its teachings, when following those teachings would do good (good fruits).

 

Now if you find a teaching or practice that is harmful by those who faithfully practice it- then there is a valid discussion to be had about modifying or changing that practice.

 

In your examples of ordaining men to the priesthood you have to cite those who practice unrighteous dominion, or neglect their priesthood duties to family and spouse, to prove the practice of ordaining men to the priesthood is harmful.

[KevinG]

It's wrong if we can say with all confidence that those who don't honor their priesthood don't feel like they were taught to do so by the Church.

 

Members of the church have taught falsely to be sure.  But please cite the doctrine or policy that causes harm if taught correctly.

 

Your statement is still an example of exception fallacy.

 

It would be better for you to say giving men power and authority is inherently harmful then demonstrate how.  Or that organized religion is harmful.  At least those approaches are intellectually honest.

[HappyJackWagon]

Put very simply:  Don't blame the church for the harm (bad fruits) caused by those who do not follow its teachings, when following those teachings would do good (good fruits).

 

Now if you find a teaching or practice that is harmful by those who faithfully practice it- then there is a valid discussion to be had about modifying or changing that practice.

 

In your examples of ordaining men to the priesthood you have to cite those who practice unrighteous dominion, or neglect their priesthood duties to family and spouse, to prove the practice of ordaining men to the priesthood is harmful.

The fruit of the gospel is the people. If the church helps people do good things then it is good. If it helps them do bad things, then it is bad. There are both good fruits and bad fruits as the people strive to live the gospel. I think there is much more good than bad but that doesn't mean there isn't any bad. Ignoring the bad fruit of the tree as having nothing to do with the tree (church) is living like an ostrich.

[KevinG]

Well, that is not what I was talking about. As I said, I think it's fine to discuss harmful teachings and practices in any organization and give examples.

 

But that is what the thread was started to talk about.  Non-sequiturs excepted.