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

[Thinking]

Do you suppose Elder Scott was saying "don't marry men who didn't go on a mission", or rather "missionary sacrifice and worthiness in preparing for Temple marriage is a blessing"?

 

So what he was really saying wasn't what he was actually saying? Got it.

[Calm]

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.

How does recognizing behaviour that goes against church teaching not being a result of listening to church teachings prevent us from claiming that behaviour that follows church teachings could be a result of people listening to that church teaching?

I am not understanding the reasoning here.

I think one needs to demonstrate and just not assume church teachings increase the likelihood of behaviour by comparing behaviour to general population, but I don't understand an automatic dismissal.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Calm

[sethpayne]

 

 

What harm would anyone blame on the church, and why?  What would be the fix.

 

 

Well, let's continue with the example I've given.  By the Church NOT explicitly disavowing this false teaching, it has allowed members to continue to spread the lie that victims of abuse may somehow hold some responsibility.  In that sense *some* people *may* have been harmed.  To prevent that, all it would take is a disavowal -- kind of like the Priesthood essay.

 

But are you looking for doctrines that are *universally* harmful? Meaning, they harm everyone who comes in contact with them?  Again, I don't think such a doctrinal teaching exists.  False teachings likely harm abuse victims and I know some black members who are deeply hurt by the false teachings of past prophets.  But these are anecdotes.  I know some abuse victims who don't care what was falsely taught at one point and I know some black members who aren't concerned about the racist teachings of past prophets.  It comes down to the individual.

 

Of course, I realize that one may be tempted to start blaming the individual for "choosing" to be harmed.  But I'd be hesitant to question the harm caused by false teachings on abuse and race as expressed by those who claim harm.

[Storm Rider]

So what he was really saying wasn't what he was actually saying? Got it.

 

Yes, absolutely no need for context in anything.  Use the exact words that appeal to whatever offends and run, with eyes closed, and ram that head right into the dirt, while screaming I will not listen, I will not listen.  Yes, that is the behavior of an open mind. 

[sethpayne]

How does recognizing behaviour that goes against church teaching not being a result of listening to church teachings prevent us from claiming that behaviour that follows church teachings could be a result of people listening to that church teaching?

I am not understanding the reasoning here.

I think one needs to demonstrate and just not assume church teachings increase the likelihood of behaviour by comparing behaviour to general population, but I don't understand an automatic dismissal.

 

Because if you want to claim credit for the good, you have to also take credit for the bad.  The reason it is all problematic -- good or bad -- is that it is all subjective.  Can we reasonably claim that a racist member was inspired by past teachings by BY or Mark Peterson?  I personally don't think so.  Nor do I think we can credit the Church when a member behaves compassionately or charitably.  The most we can say is that the fruits of individual behavior are indicative of a *personal* commitment to follow Jesus.

[Calm]

So even though we have scientific studies that American LDS men live 10 years longer on average than American nonLDS men, we can't point to the WoW teaching by the Church as getting some of the credit for that?

I am still missing the reasoning.

"Can we reasonably claim that a racist member was inspired by past teachings by BY or Mark Peterson? I personally don't think so"

We probably should be very careful not to make claims, especially when speaking about individuals. I think if there was scientific evidence LDS were generally more racist than the general population, we would need to consider the probability that teachings contributed (though iirc Lester Bush's...or maybe it was Mauss' research demonstrated that in the past not too far before...or maybe after...OD 2 our racism on average was not stronger). I am just not getting why when there is reliable evidence we are different from the norm and this difference lines up well with our teachings, what the problem is with making the connection.

Add-on: wiki has it as Mauss in 66, ipad not allowing me to copy

Edited October 28, 2015 by Calm

[Tony Frank]

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.

 

This is Jesus Christ's Church, and most faithful Saints of the Holy One of Israel actually do exhibit good behavior and attributes. Having a few bad apples does not change the delicious fruit that His vineyard yields. Showing people who we are is a good thing.

[carbon dioxide]

 

Should we really reclassify sexual sins in order to make people feel better about committing them?

Yes.  We should put a new version of the scripture that says "I the Lord can not look up sin with the least degree of allowance" by adding "unless of course society changes its views or my standards offend you of which in that case, never mind."

[sethpayne]

So even though we have scientific studies that American LDS men live 10 years longer on average than American nonLDS men, we can't point to the WoW teaching by the Church as getting some of the credit for that?

I am still missing the reasoning.

 

 

I don't disagree with you.  But let's also talk about Seventh Day Adventists who live longer than Mormons.  Or the people of Okinawa.  Do we really want to tie this to LDS Church teachings or should we be a bit more broad and say that cultural influence on lifestyle and diet impact lifespan?  My point is that if we should be very cautious when using stats to build up or legitimize any given teaching because the tables can just as easily be flipped.  If we want to measure spiritual value based on lifespan or other indicators like obesity then we have to be fair and say that those red-wine and coffee drinking french folks are on to something.

 

So I don't discount that we can look at cultural trends in the aggregate and correlate them with certain outcomes.  I'm simply saying that using those outcomes to somehow validate or promote the culture/teaching is a double edged sword.  

 

Also, I think your distinction about making claims about individuals is absolutely correct as I've stated something similar in other replies.

[KevinG]

So what he was really saying wasn't what he was actually saying? Got it.

 

Negative filtering does not help comprehension.

[HappyJackWagon]

Negative filtering does not help comprehension.

It's helpful to recognize that people read and interpret the same messages differently. Continually attacking someone's comprehension because they don't agree with your point of view is childish.

[jkwilliams]

It's helpful to recognize that people read and interpret the same messages differently. Continually attacking someone's comprehension because they don't agree with your point of view is childish.

Yep. What I take from this thread is that gospel teachings are always beneficial, and only when they are misunderstood or misapplied do they result in problems. Of course, that's begging the question, isn't it? For example, the church teaches that we are to follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost. An example of this is when Nephi was led to Jerusalem by the spirit and obeyed the spirit's command to kill Laban. Another example is that of the Lafferty brothers, who say they followed the promptings of the spirit to kill a young mother and a toddler. What's the difference? One was following the teaching correctly, and the other wasn't.

This is one of the reasons I think it's important to recognize that all human experience is interpreted. We make mistakes, even (perhaps especially) when we think we are getting communication directly from God. The reason we have the check of the scriptures and the prophets to temper our reliance on personal revelation is the recognition that we are prone to error individually.

[HappyJackWagon]

Yep. What I take from this thread is that gospel teachings are always beneficial, and only when they are misunderstood or misapplied do they result in problems. Of course, that's begging the question, isn't it? For example, the church teaches that we are to follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost. An example of this is when Nephi was led to Jerusalem by the spirit and obeyed the spirit's command to kill Laban. Another example is that of the Lafferty brothers, who say they followed the promptings of the spirit to kill a young mother and a toddler. What's the difference? One was following the teaching correctly, and the other wasn't.

This is one of the reasons I think it's important to recognize that all human experience is interpreted. We make mistakes, even (perhaps especially) when we think we are getting communication directly from God. The reason we have the check of the scriptures and the prophets to temper our reliance on personal revelation is the recognition that we are prone to error individually.

This is one of the reasons why it is problematic that a living prophet always supercedes past prophets and even the scriptures (as found in the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet).

 

That line of thinking allows for no check or balance. It can create an environment where ANYTHING a prophet/apostle says can contradict and supercede long accepted doctrines by other leaders or scriptures.

[KevinG]

Yep. What I take from this thread is that gospel teachings are always beneficial, and only when they are misunderstood or misapplied do they result in problems. 

 

You missed the point.  If you have to reinterpret what I said in order to argue with it, don't bother.

 

Here is the original again:

 

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.

 

This is one of the reasons why it is problematic that a living prophet always supercedes past prophets and even the scriptures (as found in the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet).

 

That line of thinking allows for no check or balance. It can create an environment where ANYTHING a prophet/apostle says can contradict and supercede long accepted doctrines by other leaders or scriptures.

 

Another fantastic example of reading things the way they aren't.

 

You are a pro at negative interpretations and discounting positives.  But if calling others childish works better for you, enjoy!

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't disagree with you.  But let's also talk about Seventh Day Adventists who live longer than Mormons.  Or the people of Okinawa. 

So the favorable trend among Seventh Day Adventists somehow negates the correlation of Mormonism with good health? I don't get it. Couldn't we recognize that both the Adventist and the LDS faiths bring about favorable outcomes in the health of their adherents?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

You missed the point.  If you have to reinterpret what I said in order to argue with it, don't bother.

 

Here is the original again:

 

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.

 

 

Another fantastic example of reading things the way they aren't.

 

You are a pro at negative interpretations and discounting positives.  But if calling others childish works better for you, enjoy!

A very astute post, KevinG. It merits more than just rep point, so I'll give you a verbal atta-boy.

[sethpayne]

So the favorable trend among Seventh Day Adventists somehow negates the correlation of Mormonism with good health? I don't get it. Couldn't we recognize that both the Adventist and the LDS faiths bring about favorable outcomes in the health of their adherents?

 

Did you read my whole post, Scott?  I don't think you did.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

Another fantastic example of reading things the way they aren't.

 

 

But we already know I struggle with comprehension, right?

 

Are you disagreeing that there are no checks on what a prophet teaches since he supercedes past prophets and even scriptures? Or are you disagreeing that it could ever become a problem?

Or is there another reason you're disagreeing?

 

Is a prophet limited to saying things only backed up by scripture or is he justified in saying anything regardless of whether or not there is a scriptural precedence? I'm not sure what your position is on this.

[KevinG]

But we already know I struggle with comprehension, right?

 

Are you disagreeing that there are no checks on what a prophet teaches since he supercedes past prophets and even scriptures? Or are you disagreeing that it could ever become a problem?

Or is there another reason you're disagreeing?

 

Is a prophet limited to saying things only backed up by scripture or is he justified in saying anything regardless of whether or not there is a scriptural precedence? I'm not sure what your position is on this.

 

It could be a problem if all members of the church stopped seeking personal revelation.  The Prophet works with Christ and counsels of Christ led men.

 

You place the Prophet in opposition to previous prophets, the Scriptures, Counsels, Holy Spirit, and common sense artificially and hypothetically.  If you were to provide an actual example of how our current prophet is in opposition to what we learn in the Scriptures and what the other quorums of the church are doing, then we could have a substantive discussion.

 

Even then we believe that we are constantly learning, line by line, precept by precept.  And a current prophet can supersede the teachings of a former prophet without having to denigrate the past or reject the current.  Greater understanding is just that.

 

The tacit insult implying Mormons are sheeple who blindly obey is noted and rejected.

 

Strict literal-ism and a failure to change is not a feature it is a failure.

[Bomgeography]

I don't think the church is at fault