Mistakes By Church Leaders

[Mystery Meat]

To trust that either 1- God will not allow his prophets and apostles to make mistakes or 2- that he will correct them if they are wrong, I would need to accept a fatalistic approach to life that I am merely here to be acted upon and have no responsibility to make things better by advocating for needed change.

 

To respond to the rest of your above post as requested (I think the quote above summarizes it pretty well)...

 

I think it is sad that you have pigeon-holes yourself thusly. I do trust that either 1- God will not allow his prophets and apostles to make mistakes or 2- that he will correct them if they are wrong, and I have not accepted a fatalistic approach to life or that I am merely here to be acted upon and have no responsibility to make things better. The most pertinent changes I can make are in regards to myself.  

 

If you feel like you need to be able to advocate and push publicly for change within the Church to be fulfilled and happy, I think you are in the wrong church.

[Mystery Meat]

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-

 

If only it were that easy...

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

And yet you and other like you would not even give the Church the time to train and implement the policy for jumping to hasty conclusions.

[HappyJackWagon]

To respond to the rest of your above post as requested (I think the quote above summarizes it pretty well)...

 

I think it is sad that you have pigeon-holes yourself thusly. I do trust that either 1- God will not allow his prophets and apostles to make mistakes or 2- that he will correct them if they are wrong, and I have not accepted a fatalistic approach to life or that I am merely here to be acted upon and have no responsibility to make things better. The most pertinent changes I can make are in regards to myself.  

 

If you feel like you need to be able to advocate and push publicly for change within the Church to be fulfilled and happy, I think you are in the wrong church.

Of course you do and that is a very kind thing to say.

 

Please answer me this. If the original intent was so misunderstood, why did it take the church an entire week to address it? When I'm misunderstood I generally try to explain myself so that I am correctly understood. Elder Christofferson's video didn't address the "misinterpretation". They waited a week. Why? Could they not understand the cause of the misunderstanding? Were they not familiar with the written policy enough to be able to see the problem?

 

Or did they require a week to get the entire Q15's agreement on making a significant reinterpretation of the original policy.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

What happened on this board in the week between the leak and the "clarification" can be called many things. "Reasoning" together isn't one of them.

[stemelbow]

And yet you and other like you would not even give the Church the time to train and implement the policy for jumping to hasty conclusions.

The Church said, initially, the policy was effective immediately. Meaning there was no room for training. the implementation happened when the change was published. I don't get why you are blaming HappyJack. Seems odd all things considered.

[HappyJackWagon]

And yet you and other like you would not even give the Church the time to train and implement the policy for jumping to hasty conclusions.

Had they announced any kind of training or expalantion for this new handbook policy? That's not usually how handbook additions occur. The policy was released for "immediate implementation" so of course it needed immediate reaction. Thankfully the reaction was swift and loud so that the church could backtrack and make some correction.

 

ETA- I'll add that it doesn't take an entire week to be able to read and understand a clearly worded policy. What would be an appropriate period of time? 1 week? 1 month? A year? Should we consider all statements from church leaders on such a timeline even if they indicate it is for "immediate implementation"?

Edited November 16, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[stemelbow]

What happened on this board in the week between the leak and the "clarification" can be called many things. "Reasoning" together isn't one of them.

What was it? Are you upset with those who disagree with the policy change? Just because I disagreed doesn't mean I can't be reasonable. But it seems like you are so accusing.

[Mystery Meat]

Of course you do and that is a very kind thing to say.

 

Make no mistake, I am not trying to push you out. I want you to stay. But if the only way for you to stay and be happy is by acting contrary to the established order, I think you will never be happy in the Church.

 

Please answer me this. If the original intent was so misunderstood, why did it take the church an entire week to address it? When I'm misunderstood I generally try to explain myself so that I am correctly understood. Elder Christofferson's video didn't address the "misinterpretation". They waited a week. Why? Could they not understand the cause of the misunderstanding? Were they not familiar with the written policy enough to be able to see the problem?

 

My answering this question would be speculation. I don't care for speculation, which is what you are doing here. Nevertheless, I know the original intent and whether they waited an hour, a week or year to clarify does not change that.

 

Or did they require a week to get the entire Q15's agreement on making a significant reinterpretation of the original policy.

 

No.

[Mystery Meat]

What was it? Are you upset with those who disagree with the policy change? Just because I disagreed doesn't mean I can't be reasonable. But it seems like you are so accusing.

 

Disagreement is fine. Jumping to unfair conclusions, calling the Lord's anointed Christlike, threatening to leave the Church, and labeling those who agreed as bigoted...not so much.

[Mystery Meat]

Had they announced any kind of training or expalantion for this new handbook policy? That's not usually how handbook additions occur. The policy was released for "immediate implementation" so of course it needed immediate reaction. Thankfully the reaction was swift and loud so that the church could backtrack and make some correction.

 

ETA- I'll add that it doesn't take an entire week to be able to read and understand a clearly worded policy. What would be an appropriate period of time? 1 week? 1 month? A year? Should we consider all statements from church leaders on such a timeline even if they indicate it is for "immediate implementation"?

 

They did not backtrack. You can spread the speculation/lie all you want. But it does not make it true. 

 

ETA: But you and folks like you will keep saying it, because it gives the false pretense of having evidence that complaining, murmuring and backbiting actually resulted in "positive change."  

Edited November 16, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[HappyJackWagon]

This issue will likely be swept under the run at this point because so many of us are suffering from policy fatigue but it's a real shame. The church hasn't accepted ANY responsibility for the confusion and uproar. It is all someone elses fault, kind of like when I ask my children who started a disagreement. It's always "not me". Not me is responsible for many quarels in my home but I'm probably unique.

 

To date, the policy is still not written in a way that reflect the "intent" of the brethren.

 

To date, the church has not accepted any responsibility for the confusion they caused.

 

To date, the policy, even as clarified, still harms young children and infringes on the policy of the child and the parent.

 

This issue isn't over.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Of course you do and that is a very kind thing to say.

 

Make no mistake, I am not trying to push you out. I want you to stay. But if the only way for you to stay and be happy is by acting contrary to the established order, I think you will never be happy in the Church.

 

Please answer me this. If the original intent was so misunderstood, why did it take the church an entire week to address it? When I'm misunderstood I generally try to explain myself so that I am correctly understood. Elder Christofferson's video didn't address the "misinterpretation". They waited a week. Why? Could they not understand the cause of the misunderstanding? Were they not familiar with the written policy enough to be able to see the problem?

 

My answering this question would be speculation. I don't care for speculation, which is what you are doing here. Nevertheless, I know the original intent and whether they waited an hour, a week or year to clarify does not change that.

 

Or did they require a week to get the entire Q15's agreement on making a significant reinterpretation of the original policy.

 

No.

 

Why is answering that question speculation? I thought you had an inside source that we can absolutely rely upon.

[Mystery Meat]

Why is answering that question speculation? I thought you had an inside source that we can absolutely rely upon.

 

I do not pretend to know everything, especially not the timing of the letter.

[Zakuska]

So lets talk about what I see as a Doctrinal mistake.  God told the Prophet Ezekiel Exactly why Sodom and Gamorah were destroyed and none of the reasons given were because of Homosexuality.

 

Ezekiel 16

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. 51 Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done. 52 Thou also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters. 53 When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them: 54 That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them. 55 When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate. 56 For thy sister Sodom was not mentioned by thy mouth in the day of thy pride,19 20  57 Before thy wickedness was discovered, as at the time of thy reproach of the daughters of Syria, and all that are round about her, the daughters of the Philistines, which despise thee round about.21 22  58 Thou hast borne thy lewdness and thine abominations, saith the LORD.23  59 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant.

 

And whats worse... God says that Ezekiel's Nations sins were worse than Sodom and Gomorah. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by Zakuska

[stemelbow]

Disagreement is fine. Jumping to unfair conclusions,

Sure, I'd say many who supported the policy jumped to conclusions about those of us who did not and jumped to conclusions about those who were negatively effected by the policy, but I happy to let that go.

calling the Lord's anointed Christlike,

That's a shame?

threatening to leave the Church,

People will always leave. I don't see that as a problem, in and of itself.

and labeling those who agreed as bigoted...not so much.

From what I saw, this didn't happen. If it did, can you point it out?

[Mystery Meat]

Sure, I'd say many who supported the policy jumped to conclusions about those of us who did not and jumped to conclusions about those who were negatively effected by the policy, but I happy to let that go.

That's a shame?

 

Hahaha, sorry, unchristlike

People will always leave. I don't see that as a problem, in and of itself.

From what I saw, this didn't happen. If it did, can you point it out?

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

I think they should pointed out as much as you point out your own mistakes.  Note that "your" is personal and singular.  Individuals makes mistakes.  

 

It is far different when you are accusing all the leaders of the Church of error.  All the prophets and apostles are wrong because their actions and words conflict with your own personal desires.  These types of comments simply show how far we ourselves have separated ourselves from the Spirit and from any desire to follow Christ.  We have put our faith in the arm of flesh and closed our minds.  

[rpn]

The scriptures tell us when someone has offended us to go to them.   Every church member who has trouble with a policy or action of a leader should first look to see if the moat is in their own eye.  They need to seek spiritual confirmation, pray for their own understanding, pray for the leader, maybe fast to reconcile, or for the leader to reconcile.   If they think they need to call out a mistake after doing all this due diligence, then they go to the leader directly (if this means that they end up writing the First Presidency, it will be kicked back to a local leader, so it makes sense to start with a local leader and go up to a SP and then to the Area Presidency, and then to the FP, attaching to each subsequent level all the previous documentation of one's efforts to get resolution.

 

I think members ought to do this each/every time they think a leader has made a mistake.   IME, most often, I learn that it is my moat, and/or that the mistake was okay with God for some reason that I find impossible to understand, or that I can address it within my own stewardship and eventually others will also resolve it, or that it was not a mistake at all.  About a third of the time, I feel imspired to talk with a leader about an issue, often just sending  an email to alert them of a prospective.  There have been only a few times in my lifetime where I have felt like I should take it further up the chain.  Sometimes I get feedback from a church department.  Sometimes I don't.   But I  can see changes made that address concerns, whether that is coincidence or my suggestions were part of a groundswell, or the reason, I don't really care.

 

I have a significant amount of personal experience that theere is plenty of room to address concerns that leaders have made mistakes.  And in the process, I've learned when it is my turn to be the leader that I need to be open to consider the concerns and suggestions of others.

[Thinking]

we may go somewhat astray by following our leaders, but it is NOT our place to correct the course.

 

So as long as it's only somewhat astray, everything is OK?

[stemelbow]

I think they should pointed out as much as you point out your own mistakes.  Note that "your" is personal and singular.  Individuals makes mistakes.  

 

It is far different when you are accusing all the leaders of the Church of error.  All the prophets and apostles are wrong because their actions and words conflict with your own personal desires.  These types of comments simply show how far we ourselves have separated ourselves from the Spirit and from any desire to follow Christ.  We have put our faith in the arm of flesh and closed our minds.

But we already should be able to acknowledge that the leaders have been wrong about things in the past. Why must we be so dogmatic about them not being wrong now?

[Thinking]

How much fallibility are church leaders allowed to have?

[stemelbow]

How much fallibility are church leaders allowed to have?

From what I can gather, they are allowed to over-eat or tell their wives they don't look fat when they do. Other than that, it seems like they are perfect.

[Steve-o]

This issue will likely be swept under the run at this point because so many of us are suffering from policy fatigue but it's a real shame. The church hasn't accepted ANY responsibility for the confusion and uproar. It is all someone elses fault, kind of like when I ask my children who started a disagreement. It's always "not me". Not me is responsible for many quarels in my home but I'm probably unique.

 

To date, the policy is still not written in a way that reflect the "intent" of the brethren.

 

To date, the church has not accepted any responsibility for the confusion they caused.

 

To date, the policy, even as clarified, still harms young children and infringes on the policy of the child and the parent.

 

This issue isn't over.

Those all seem accurate right now but maybe the Church will address these issues. I think the way the letter clarified the policy made things much better but maybe there are still some loose ends to tidy up.

[Zakuska]

So the other thread got closed so I'll put it here since I also posted the Ezekiel Scripture here as well.

Leviticus 18:22

Leviticus 20:13

Judges 19:16-24

1 Kings 14:24

2 Kings 23:7 

 

So now we're living the Levitical Law?  

 

Eating shell fish is also an Abomination (Lev. 11:12) Do you eath Shell Fish? 

 

Theres quite a few Red Lobster Restaraunts in SLC and Im pretty sure I saw President Monson, Several of the Twelve and quite a few of you all eating there once too. My wife once served President Monson and his wife *GASP* a diet coke. (Horror of Horrors!)

 

Was not the Law fulfilled in Christ? 

 

Was not much of the law "traditionals of the fathers" instead of commandments from God? (Jesus thought so)

 

Did not Christ say to Peter of the heathon nations practicing those abomination, "Call not that which I have cleansed, Unclean"?

 

Why are we taking the Judgement out of Christs hands when it comes to Homosexuality.  We all have crosses that we bear.  What makes your  or my sins any worse than a homosexuals sins? 

 

You or I are not bared from church membership for our sins, they are.

 

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", Jesus said.

 

We Spiritually stone homosexuals for their sins all the time. Excommunicating them or baring the doors against them. Why cant we just forgive and leave the judgement where it belongs. In Christs hands.

 

Isn't that what Paul taught us to do?

 

Romans 14

 1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.1  2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.2  6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.3  7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.  13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.4 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.5  16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.6 7  

 

A Homosexual might be weak in the faith and not able to fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth.  But we shouldn't forbid them to join or condemn them to hell for it either. Let the Lord take care of their sins. 

 

He can't very well heal them if every time they try and check in to the  hospital psyhcophantic Doctors and Nurses kick them out the door again because they aren't/can't perfectly following the Gospel. If God hasn't thrown any fire and brimstone at San Franscico by now, perhaps he has figured out a better way to more lovingly deal with our Homosexual brothers and sisters. And just maybe we should not presume to take his place and throw fire and brimstone at them either. He created them that way after all, Only he can heal them.

 

Did Jesus, Paul or any other Apostles ever tell us to forbid a homosexual from entering the congregation for any reason? 

 

Enuchs can join the church as evidenced by the book of Acts where the Eunuch was baptized. (bringing into question all of Deut. 23 as "Jewish Tradition/Bad Policy") We also allow barren women to Join the church.  So using the Proclamation on the Family as justification of disallowing Gay couples into the church makes no sense. Gay and Lesbian couples are basically Eunuchs. However, they do have the potential to be able to reproduce with the miracles of Modern Medicine. So they are one step better than a Eunuch in that respect. God did promise the Eunuchs better blessings than us breeders. (Isaiah 56:4)

 

Have you ever stopped to think that just maybe the Lord is using this issue to judge the modern church.

 

He might just be seeing who will fall into the Moses camp (letter of the Law, follow the prophet he knows the way, stone the sinners) and those who fall into the Jesus Camp of "Unconditional (Agape) Love" (have mercy on the sinners, judge the ye be not judged) Thew same laws the Bretheren are metting out will Judge them as well.