Mistakes By Church Leaders

[The Nehor]

The point is... there being such procedures, then leaders can make mistakes and we have ways of dealing with it. So perhaps dear leaders don't deserve all the reverent adoration, genophlecting and psychophantic loyalty we modern members tend to heap upon them as if we were in a trance. It's every members duty in the kingdom to be his brothers keeper.

The what now? I am loyal to the priesthood keys, not the people holding them though I like many of them. Also did you man sycophantic? Psychophantic is a slang word that means servile in a violent or psychotic manner.

I think the problem may be that you think the worst of other members pushing this characterization on them because you had some experiences with a few extremists or it makes you feel better to imagine a church of sheep with a few members of the intelligentsia of which you are therefore a card-carrying member.

[stemelbow]

It's God's job to correct the mistakes of the Brethren, not yours, mine or ours.

God works with everyone, though. And we all see through a glass darkly, even our leaders. We must accept the notion that truth and goodness can come from many places and we ought to be at the ready to embrace goodness no matter from whence it comes.

I find it foolish to assume true principles, teachings and understanding can only come from God to leaders of the Church. Particularly since much good has been found in the world. It'll always be for those who wait on God to do it the way they want that they too will find themselves in error, just like the rest of us. We should be more prayerful and watchful, I'd say.

[ERayR]

When is it OK to suggest that Church leaders have made a mistake?  Everyone says that they understand that Church leaders make mistakes and are not perfect but it seems that if it suggested that there has been a mistake that people immediately circle the wagons and start defending the leadership.

 

Do you have to wait until they die?   Is it ok to believe they have made a mistake as long as you never actually say the words out loud? I know the LDS Church membership does not like to criticize leadership and I respect that but how do mistakes get corrected if no one speaks out about them?

 

 

I don't want this thread to again start discussing SSM and the policy but I'd like to know your thoughts on when it is OK (if ever) to suggest that a mistake has been made.   I'm sure this has been discussed before so I apologize in advance.  I didn't find a thread when I did a very quick search.

 

To think they made mistakes - anytime to yourself.  Publicly, vocally and insistently - probably not unless you know everything they know.  It is a bit conceited to try and impose your will on others when it is not your job to do so.

Edited November 16, 2015 by ERayR

[Mystery Meat]

I understand that good people will disagree on this approach but it's my hope that we can accept that there is more than one faithful approach to interacting with church leadership.

 

Perhaps, but I don't think public criticism of the sort that goes on across the internet including this site is one such example of a faithful approach. I think the quote provided in this thread by Smac of Elder Oaks provides five different faithful approaches. Perhaps that list is not exhaustive, but it does not include Church membership publicly lambasting Church leaders, local or general. Such an approach is NOT a faithful approach. However, if you feel so inclined, by all means go talk to a leader who has the authority to correct the mistake. In the case of the 15, that is the Lord Jesus Christ himself. That is the only faithful way of correcting their mistake.

 

End of story.

[Mystery Meat]

God works with everyone, though. And we all see through a glass darkly, even our leaders. We must accept the notion that truth and goodness can come from many places and we ought to be at the ready to embrace goodness no matter from whence it comes.

I find it foolish to assume true principles, teachings and understanding can only come from God to leaders of the Church. Particularly since much good has been found in the world. It'll always be for those who wait on God to do it the way they want that they too will find themselves in error, just like the rest of us. We should be more prayerful and watchful, I'd say.

 

Wow, you sure did extrapolate a lot from my comment that wasn't there.

[stemelbow]

To think they made mistakes - anytime to yourself.  Publicly, vocally and insistently - probably not unless you know everything they know.  It is a bit conceited to try and impose your will on others when it is not your job todo so.

To think another made a mistake is somehow akin to imposing one's will on others?

[The Nehor]

God works with everyone, though. And we all see through a glass darkly, even our leaders. We must accept the notion that truth and goodness can come from many places and we ought to be at the ready to embrace goodness no matter from whence it comes.I find it foolish to assume true principles, teachings and understanding can only come from God to leaders of the Church. Particularly since much good has been found in the world. It'll always be for those who wait on God to do it the way they want that they too will find themselves in error, just like the rest of us. We should be more prayerful and watchful, I'd say.

I do not disagree but if you are arguing that this means the apostles and bishops need regular critiques I do not see a connection.

[stemelbow]

Wow, you sure did extrapolate a lot from my comment that wasn't there.

I didn't extrapolate from your comment at all. I commented.

[stemelbow]

I do not disagree but if you are arguing that this means the apostles and bishops need regular critiques I do not see a connection.

Regular critiques? I'm not sure what that means? Regularly every 5 years? Critiques should come when there is reason for them as I see it. However often, depends.

[KevinG]

When I see a leadership decision that I believe is in error, or could lead to unintended consequences I counsel with those who lead me.  I also encourage counsel from those who I lead.

 

The brethren in their quorums and with people outside their quorums encourage the same.

 

We are an organization that works through counsels.  

[stemelbow]

When I see a leadership decision that I believe is in error, or could lead to unintended consequences I counsel with those who lead me.  I also encourage counsel from those who I lead.

 

The brethren in their quorums and with people outside their quorums encourage the same.

 

We are an organization that works through counsels.

It'd be awesome if we could so counsel with church leaders when church wide policy changes happen and we disagree. But such is not possible.

[KevinG]

It'd be awesome if we could so counsel with church leaders when church wide policy changes happen and we disagree. But such is not possible.

 

We can.  The Saints in Brazil and West Africa did in prayer and with letters when it came to priesthood and race.

 

However when counselling we must be humble and prepared to sustain a final decision made by those who the Lord has called to be General or Local Authorities.

 

Since you are a Ward leader, you should be concerned with counselling with your ward members and Bishopric.

[The Nehor]

Regular critiques? I'm not sure what that means? Regularly every 5 years? Critiques should come when there is reason for them as I see it. However often, depends.

And if you feel someone you cannot contact easily needs critiquing what do you do then?

[stemelbow]

And if you feel someone you cannot contact easily needs critiquing what do you do then?

I'd say it depends. It depends on what is the original thought, why it may need critiquing, and the possible outcomes as a result of the attempted correct or not correction.

[Zakuska]

The what now? I am loyal to the priesthood keys, not the people holding them though I like many of them. Also did you man sycophantic? Psychophantic is a slang word that means servile in a violent or psychotic manner.

A lot of members act just like a bunch of Psycho's defending dear leaders to the death. Nothing a dear leader does or says can ever be wrong in their eyes.

They remind me of this...

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRU1j0pPeT3DWeM2bDfnEVUxF-lXSX4kAyEe32KEXn21xTH-eze

They close their eyes so they cant see if a dear leader is doing something wrong.

They close their ears so they cant hear anyone calling a warning cry.

They close their mouth and don't speak up when they see or hear a leader do something wrong.

We don't avoid situations like MMM by treating our Leaders like Super Heros.

However, I think I'll ratchet back my rhetoric now.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Zakuska

[HappyJackWagon]

Perhaps, but I don't think public criticism of the sort that goes on across the internet including this site is one such example of a faithful approach. I think the quote provided in this thread by Smac of Elder Oaks provides five different faithful approaches. Perhaps that list is not exhaustive, but it does not include Church membership publicly lambasting Church leaders, local or general. Such an approach is NOT a faithful approach. However, if you feel so inclined, by all means go talk to a leader who has the authority to correct the mistake. In the case of the 15, that is the Lord Jesus Christ himself. That is the only faithful way of correcting their mistake.

 

End of story.

I think the "clarification" of the policy which really is a policy "change" is the direct result of people voicing their dissatisfaction with the policy. So unless I prefer the original policy as precisely written, I would have to surmise that the dissatisfaction resulted in a better approach by the church. The church benefited and was made better because of the uproar. The faithful dissent and loyal opposition resulted in a better outcome.

 

How would you respond to the rest of my original post?

[KevinG]

However, I think I'll ratchet back my rhetoric now.

 

Why?  It's quite entertaining having you compare faithful LDS to psycho monkeys who see/her/speak no evil.  Invoking Mountain Meadows Massacre in 2015 is also giving me the warm fuzzies.

 

Have you tried decaf?

[KevinG]

I think the "clarification" of the policy which really is a policy "change" is the direct result of people voicing their dissatisfaction with the policy. So unless I prefer the original policy as precisely written, I would have to surmise that the dissatisfaction resulted in a better approach by the church. The church benefited and was made better because of the uproar. The faithful dissent and loyal opposition resulted in a better outcome.

 

How would you respond to the rest of my original post?

 

The clarification was made because people misinterpreted the original policy.  Mostly people who were inclined to see the worst possible interpretation of the church's actions.

 

I would surmise that the dissatisfaction and uproar resulted in exactly what would have happened when Bishop's started asking for clarification in individual circumstances.  Only Dehlin and the boo birds made sure that a maximum of hearburn was experienced by the disaffected, and resulted in much fear mongering.

[Mystery Meat]

I think the "clarification" of the policy which really is a policy "change" is the direct result of people voicing their dissatisfaction with the policy. So unless I prefer the original policy as precisely written, I would have to surmise that the dissatisfaction resulted in a better approach by the church. The church benefited and was made better because of the uproar. The faithful dissent and loyal opposition resulted in a better outcome.

 

How would you respond to the rest of my original post?

 

That's fine for you to think that, but I know, as I have stated before, because of personal association (among other things) that this was always the intent of the policy. So the backlash did nothing to effectuate change, but only damned those who criticized.

[stemelbow]

That's fine for you to think that, but I know, as I have stated before, because of personal association (among other things) that this was always the intent of the policy. So the backlash did nothing to effectuate change, but only damned those who criticized.

Why didn't you tell us that before the clarification came out? Or did you and I missed it? My biggest wish is there was no policy to begin with. Now it just seems like the relatively few children who live, as a primary residence, with gay parents and are interested in the LDS Church, are acceptable losses to the Church. I wonder if the Church quantified that loss before the policy, saying, "well we might lose a couple hundred possible people, but we'd probably have lost them anywho, or most of them."

[Gray]

The clarification was made because people misinterpreted the original policy.  Mostly people who were inclined to see the worst possible interpretation of the church's actions.

 

I would surmise that the dissatisfaction and uproar resulted in exactly what would have happened when Bishop's started asking for clarification in individual circumstances.  Only Dehlin and the boo birds made sure that a maximum of hearburn was experienced by the disaffected, and resulted in much fear mongering.

 

Not much room for misinterpretation when it comes to such a clearly worded policy:

 

 

[Mystery Meat]

Why didn't you tell us that before the clarification came out? Or did you and I missed it? My biggest wish is there was no policy to begin with. Now it just seems like the relatively few children who live, as a primary residence, with gay parents and are interested in the LDS Church, are acceptable losses to the Church. I wonder if the Church quantified that loss before the policy, saying, "well we might lose a couple hundred possible people, but we'd probably have lost them anywho, or most of them."

 

Keep in mind I was coming back from a recent absence from the board. I can't remember if I did or didn't, but others tried with little to no success. Everybody already had their pitchforks and torches and were beyond reason at that point.

[HappyJackWagon]

That's fine for you to think that, but I know, as I have stated before, because of personal association (among other things) that this was always the intent of the policy. So the backlash did nothing to effectuate change, but only damned those who criticized.

So will they be changing the language of the policy. If that is the original intent, the written policy is a disaster. Someone deserves an F- grade for writing that thing IF the original intent is what we now have in the "clarification".

 

I haven't seen any acknowledgement from the church that the written policy was an error. The only error was in the "interpretation" of it. This is unsatisfying as the church blames me for understanding something based on their writing. They were very clear in the written policy. They should acknowledge that the written policy didn't reflect their intention instead of blaming readers for misinterpreting.

 

ETA- I have a really hard time accepting that the church leaders and presumably their attorneys are so inept that they couldn't write a policy that more closely reflects their intent. F-

Edited November 16, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Zakuska]

So will they be changing the language of the policy. If that is the original intent, the written policy is a disaster. Someone deserves an F- grade for writing that thing IF the original intent is what we now have in the "clarification".

 

I haven't seen any acknowledgement from the church that the written policy was an error. The only error was in the "interpretation" of it. This is unsatisfying as the church blames me for understanding something based on their writing. They were very clear in the written policy. They should acknowledge that the written policy didn't reflect their intention instead of blaming readers for misinterpreting.

I seem to remember a scripture that says... Being able to admit ones mistakes is a virtue.

For some reason nothing the church ever says or does can be wrong in the eyes of some zealous members and leaders too.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Zakuska

[stemelbow]

Keep in mind I was coming back from a recent absence from the board. I can't remember if I did or didn't, but others tried with little to no success. Everybody already had their pitchforks and torches and were beyond reason at that point.

We were all reasoning together. I didn't see anyone suggest what came out as the clarification was the correct interpretation of it. Nope. People on both sides seemed to agree with what it said.