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

[stemelbow]

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.

Am I restricted to examples that are current? I think it a matter of the obvious that the explanation for the priesthood ban was harmful. It was said to be doctrine by the 1st Presidency, not just policy. The doctrine of polygamy was harmful and seemed to be acknowledged to be so by some men and women then living it.

Some would argue the policy on homosexuality is harmful in that many gay LDS have committed suicide because of the conflict inside them.

[KevinG]

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.

 

I agree.  And I'm not ignoring the bad.

 

The thread is addressing examples of people not following the Gospel in order to bash the Gospel.  Just as was done on the priesthood threads.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

What bad things does the church help people do?

 

-teaches shame such as the idea that it would be better to die than lose virtue

-Teaches people to judge (though intended to be righteous judgement it isn't always)

-Teaches intolerance by fighting against legalized SSM outside of the church

-Teaches pridefulness- Chosen people/generation, Don't cast pearls before swine (obviously we are not swine)

-priesthood ban

-incorrect nature of God (adam/god theory)

-strict gender roles (confusing culture for doctrine)

 

 

The list could go on for a very long time. Teachings can be taken to extremes and they often are. Since people are the heart of the church, you can't separate the people from the church.

Edited October 27, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Zakuska]

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.

 

The reasons given for excluding blacks and women from the priesthood.  How much harm did/does that cause for over 148 years?

Edited October 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[stemelbow]

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

I don't think anyone is arguing the Church is to be blamed for all those who don't follow the teachings and as a result hurt others. The argument seems to be that the Church should shoulder blame if it's teaching, practice or culture contribute to the harm of others.

[KevinG]

Am I restricted to examples that are current? I think it a matter of the obvious that the explanation for the priesthood ban was harmful. It was said to be doctrine by the 1st Presidency, not just policy. The doctrine of polygamy was harmful and seemed to be acknowledged to be so by some men and women then living it.

Some would argue the policy on homosexuality is harmful in that many gay LDS have committed suicide because of the conflict inside them.

 

Current would be most appropriate.  However polygamy is not necessarily harmful, however it is no longer our practice and a rather antiquated brickbat to beat the church with.

 

You are free to argue that the policy on chastity including the prohibition of homosexual behavior is harmful to some.  Others would counter that homosexual behavior is more harmful to those same people due to health risks, mental health issues, breakdown of family structures with eternal benefit, etc.

 

At least claiming that homosexuality being excluded from the LDS doctrines and practices is intellectually honest, and does not blame a church doctrine from the harm it is intended to prevent and the blessings it claims to bestow.

[Zakuska]

I don't think anyone is arguing the Church is to be blamed for all those who don't follow the teachings and as a result hurt others. The argument seems to be that the Church should shoulder blame if it's teaching, practice or culture contribute to the harm of others.

 

Rep. points there.

[KevinG]

Thank you... now we have some substance to deal with...

 

What bad things does the church help people do?

 

-teaches shame such as the idea that it would be better to die than lose virtue

I agree that this is a bad teaching.  Yet the opinions of Spencer Kimball of the last century have been largely corrected and are not consistent with doctrine going all the way back to Duteronomy (See that thread).

 

-Teaches people to judge (though intended to be righteous judgement it isn't always)

We all judge.  Using good judgement is a positive thing.  Again someone using unrighteous judgement is a personal or perhaps cultural problem, not the fault of the church.

 

-Teaches intolerance by fighting against legalized SSM outside of the church

We should be intolerant of a general acceptance of sin.  Yet you neglect the teachings of Apostles today that say we should not deny others the right of free expression and agency.  We are however allowed a voice in the pubic forum about how laws should be formed.  To date no Latter-day Saint or LDS effort has prevented someone from being partners in any way they wish.

 

-Teaches pridefulness- Chosen people/generation, Don't cast pearls before swine (obviously we are not swine)

Gospel doctrine does not teach pride.  The type of choice we teach is about being set apart to be chaste, serve, worship, etc.  You cannot provide one example of the church teaching people to be prideful or claim to be better than others because it is not there.  

 

-priesthood ban

A non-doctrinal practice that has been disavowed.  This is the first real example of church policy that has harmed that you have provided, and I agree it was wrong.  Thank goodness it has been corrected.

 

-incorrect nature of God (adam/god theory)

Never was and isn't a church doctrine or teaching.  Brigham's poorly recorded opinions notwithstanding.

 

-strict gender roles (confusing culture for doctrine)

Not all gender roles are bad.  But again you are citing a cultural issue then blaming the church practices and doctrines for it.  Just as the OP warns against.

 

The list could go on for a very long time. Teachings can be taken to extremes and they often are. Since people are the heart of the church, you can't separate the people from the church.

I do not separate people from the church, or culture.  However blaming teachings for bad examples of following teachings is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[stemelbow]

Current would be most appropriate.  However polygamy is not necessarily harmful, however it is no longer our practice and a rather antiquated brickbat to beat the church with.

 

You are free to argue that the policy on chastity including the prohibition of homosexual behavior is harmful to some.  Others would counter that homosexual behavior is more harmful to those same people due to health risks, mental health issues, breakdown of family structures with eternal benefit, etc.

 

At least claiming that homosexuality being excluded from the LDS doctrines and practices is intellectually honest, and does not blame a church doctrine from the harm it is intended to prevent and the blessings it claims to bestow.

I think that's where we'll continue to fall into impasse here. How to define harming others? Some might say the attitude with regard to the Homosexual for the church is harmful and may show that some LDS gay children and adults of killed themselves. Others might counter, well it is better they die then be sucked into being unchaste, I suppose. The reasoning may be that the gay person who decided to, what, practice his homosexuality would be banned from heaven. But as it turns out, no one really knows the eternal outcome for any individual. Maybe if the Church wasn't so harsh on it's stand on homosexuality that gay person who killed him/herself wouldn't have, and would have lived a life such that he/she qualified for eternal salvation anyway. We would never know.

Thus, in this, it seems, we'll only leave each other guessing. Nothing, it seems, will be acknowledged.

[KevinG]

Rep. points there.

 

Did you have anything to add or are you just cheerleading for those whose opinions you like?

 

 

Rah!  Go team!

[KevinG]

I think that's where we'll continue to fall into impasse here. How to define harming others? Some might say the attitude with regard to the Homosexual for the church is harmful and may show that some LDS gay children and adults of killed themselves. 

 

This is a great example.

 

Dehlin's research into gay Saints showed that families who showed unconditional love towards the child, even when disagreeing with his/her choices resulted in the same suicide rate among gay LDS youth as the general population of gay youth.  While those who shunned, or withheld affection for those youth resulted in a much higher suicide rate (up to 8x) the general population.

 

So among LDS those who followed the Gopsel law to love one another demonstrated much lower harm than those who broke our laws and practiced the non-doctrinal (and IMO evil) practices of shunning and withholding love.

 

I cannot subscribe to the idea that we should throw out all value judgments because it might hurt someone's feelings and cause them to self harm.  Especially when their behavior may be self harming temporally and eternally.  And yes I did scold children when they were headed for imminent harm.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[Zakuska]

I'm on limited status

 

Did you have anything to add or are you just cheerleading for those whose opinions you like?

 

 

Rah!  Go team!

Well since I'm on limited status thats the only way I can give rep points. Sheesh Chill dude.

 

And now Ive wasted another post for the day. 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

This is a great example.

 

Dehlin's research into gay Saints showed that families who showed unconditional love towards the child, even when disagreeing with his/her choices resulted in the same suicide rate among gay LDS youth as the general population of gay youth.  While those who shunned, or withheld affection for those youth resulted in a much higher suicide rate (up to 8x) the general population.

 

So among LDS those who followed the Gopsel law to love one another demonstrated much lower harm than those who broke our laws and practiced the non-doctrinal (and IMO evil) practices of shunning and withholding love.

 

Oh but shunning IS a doctrinal practice Kevin.  Its called "disfellowhipping" and is still used to this very day in church disciplinary councils.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Zakuska

[SmileyMcGee]

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.

What standard would you propose using to dtetermine whether something harms more than helps? I ask because if an example is given, you will likely attempt to discredit the example using your own cost/benefit paradigm, which will likely differ from the paradigm of the person that proposed the example.

Good/evil, helpful/harmful are ultimately in the eye of the beholder, but I guess if you provide a clear objective and context you can determine a possible right or wrong within a limited scope...just be sure to be cognizant of the arbitrary nature of the objective, context, and scope.

Edited October 27, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[stemelbow]

This is a great example.

 

Dehlin's research into gay Saints showed that families who showed unconditional love towards the child, even when disagreeing with his/her choices resulted in the same suicide rate among gay LDS youth as the general population of gay youth.  While those who shunned, or withheld affection for those youth resulted in a much higher suicide rate (up to 8x) the general population.

 

So among LDS those who followed the Gopsel law to love one another demonstrated much lower harm than those who broke our laws and practiced the non-doctrinal (and IMO evil) practices of shunning and withholding love.

And yet we'd never know, I suppose if those who were loved and killed themselves were harmed by the doctrines of the Church. Because if we point out that some killed themselves the response seems to be that they weren't harmed by the teachings, but were harmed by something else?

Now if the pressures brought on by the teachings of the Church didn't contribute to a gay LDS person killing himself, we can just site mental illness, or cultural factors, it seems. One, I suppose, might go so far as to say people who aren't gay nor LDS kill themselves too.

[KevinG]

Oh but shunning is a doctrinal practice Kevin.  Its called disfellowhipping.

 

Other than in the case of predators, who has ever been taught that we should shun disfellowshipped or excommunicated members?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng

 

Poorly played word game there.  Bad form.

[KevinG]

What standard would you propose using to dtetermine whether something harms more than helps? I ask because if an example is given, you will likely attempt to discredit the example using your own cost/benefit paradigm, which will likely differ from the paradigm of the person that proposed the example.

Good/evil, helpful/harmful are ultimately in the eye of the beholder, but I guess if you provide a clear objective and context you can determine a possible right or wrong within a limited scope...just be sure to be cognizant of the arbitrary nature of the objective, context, and scope.

 

An eternal standard optimally. 

 

Your point is why I have asked for concrete examples and not just hypothetical.   It is very easy to critique someone using a hypothetical bad.  It is much harder to be intellectually honest and critique a practice or principle using real examples, and discussing the cost vs. benefit of adjusting or eliminating practices.

[ksfisher]

Oh but shunning IS a doctrinal practice Kevin.  Its called disfellowhipping and is still used to this very day in church discipline councils.

 

WRONG!!!.  A member of the church who has been disfellowshipped is not shunned by his or her congregation.  If anything a disfellowshipped member is fellowshipped even more than before.  Stake and ward leaders are very interested in the well being and spiritual progress of a disfellowshipped member.  Being disfellowshipped limits how a church member participates in church, but in no way limits the ability of other church members to fellowship that individual.

 

The same applies to a member who has been excommunicated.

 

(Sorry about shouting with the caps and exclamation marks, but I feel very strongly about this.)

Edited October 27, 2015 by ksfisher

[jkwilliams]

-teaches shame such as the idea that it would be better to die than lose virtue

I agree that this is a bad teaching. Yet the opinions of Spencer Kimball of the last century have been largely corrected and are not consistent with doctrine going all the way back to Duteronomy (See that thread).

The problem for me is that they weren't "corrected" when I was growing up, so I absorbed those teachings of shame and guilt. I didn't even break the law of chastity, but I certainly found reason to be ashamed and guilty nonetheless. That is one thing I like about the church: the belief in continuing revelation means that such things can be corrected going forward, but it kind of bothers me when people say, "Oh, well, that was just a bad teaching. It wasn't doctrine, so it doesn't count." Tell that to those of us who internalized that teaching.

[stemelbow]

An eternal standard optimally. 

 

Your point is why I have asked for concrete examples and not just hypothetical.   It is very easy to critique someone using a hypothetical bad.  It is much harder to be intellectually honest and critique a practice or principle using real examples, and discussing the cost vs. benefit of adjusting or eliminating practices.

No one can know an eternal standard. One might say it is best for an individual gay person to never have sex with someone of the same sex. But eternally, having sex for that person might be the best thing for him/her. It might be the very thing he/she needs. We'd never know.

[KevinG]

And yet we'd never know, I suppose if those who were loved and killed themselves were harmed by the doctrines of the Church. Because if we point out that some killed themselves the response seems to be that they weren't harmed by the teachings, but were harmed by something else?

Now if the pressures brought on by the teachings of the Church didn't contribute to a gay LDS person killing himself, we can just site mental illness, or cultural factors, it seems. One, I suppose, might go so far as to say people who aren't gay nor LDS kill themselves too.

 

 

Demonstrate how the application of the law of chastity (Gospel principle) taught by a loving parent (Gospel principle) would cause a gay person to commit suicide.

[bluebell]

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.

 

If the good behavior and attributes are caused by the church, then they can be.  

 

Just like, if you teach your teenage son to give up his seat for an elderly person on the bus and he does it, that reflects positively on you.  If you teach him to do that, and he doesn't do it, then that does not reflect negatively on you.

 

Now, if the church teaches or tells someone to do something bad, and they do it, THEN the church is accountable.  

Edited October 27, 2015 by bluebell

[jkwilliams]

Demonstrate how the application of the law of chastity (Gospel principle) taught by a loving parent (Gospel principle) would cause a gay person to commit suicide.

I could see how someone following the recent teaching that some people can "overcome" same-sex attraction would inevitably lose hope and commit suicide.

[Zakuska]

Other than in the case of predators, who has ever been taught that we should shun disfellowshipped or excommunicated members?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng

 

Poorly played word game there.  Bad form.

 

BY taught such people should be blood atoned.

[KevinG]

The problem for me is that they weren't "corrected" when I was growing up, so I absorbed those teachings of shame and guilt. I didn't even break the law of chastity, but I certainly found reason to be ashamed and guilty nonetheless. That is one thing I like about the church: the belief in continuing revelation means that such things can be corrected going forward, but it kind of bothers me when people say, "Oh, well, that was just a bad teaching. It wasn't doctrine, so it doesn't count." Tell that to those of us who internalized that teaching.

 

So is the solution for wrongs committed by priesthood holders to throw away the teachings we have, or better instruct fathers to be worthy priesthood holders?  (I'm open to a third alternative if you have one).

 

I agree we have cultural issues we need to constantly and consistently correct.  

 

However the solution of making men more responsible in their priesthood, is not to excuse them from their priesthood responsibilities and give it to the women instead.  That approach of taking away the role of fathers because some fathers were abusive or neglectful has been irreparably harmful to men and families in the general culture.