So many threads that blame the Church for human failing; why?

[consiglieri]

18 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

My good friend, I have never gotten the feel that any of them think themselves more than men. The testimonies and books they write the talks they give when called they all speak of feeling unworthy of such callings. Joseph listed as scripture many rebukes from God. But the calling of the GA's is to teach the word of God to call all to repentance. Now as it relates to the children of Gay parents, I agree with you...because right now we will baptize any child with the parents consent, be they members or not. But our faith has righted wrongs before and they will right this one. Not every policy is a voice from heaven, but many times a matter of discussion between like minded men. The day will come that God in his own way will re-enlighten their minds that all children are not responsible for any sin to a certain and never responsible for the sins of their parents. Patience and faith, my brother, soon any and all errors will be corrected. This is the Lord's Church, "and who God calls he qualifies". 

You know I love you, Oh My Pa Pa!

I appreciate your willingness to suggest that our leaders have gotten it wrong on the new policy relating to children of gay parents.

My problem is that once I know they have gotten it wrong on one thing like this, I am not sure how many other things they may be wrong on.

But you are a good guy, nonetheless!!!

[consiglieri]

59 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Right. But we should of course avoid harsh criticism of our church leaders. Elder Oaks gave a good talk about this some years ago:

Criticism - Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, Feb. 1987

"Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

 

It seems Elder Oaks is a tad hypocritical when he claims religious views should have extra constitutional protection on the one hand, but decries any criticism of leaders by the members on the other.

[CA Steve]

13 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

No it cannot, unless you seeking to publicly destroy the testimony of others. That was unfair and uncalled for. Also none of those leaders called themselves perfect and when called their first address almost to a man is about how unworthy they feel being called. 

 

Either it can or it cannot. I did not qualify why it could, only that it could, which you immediately affirm. Nor did I say such expulsion is unwarranted. Nor did I say anything about the leaders calling themselves perfect.

The point I was making is that I do not think you can separate the Church and the gospel from its people and especially from its leaders as your OP seems to imply when you talk about criticism against the Church.  In my opinion there is no Church that is separate from the people in it and leading it and I was making that point by saying one is removed from that Church when they criticize the leaders. IOW the leaders themselves see criticism directed at them as criticism against the Church.

The Richards quote above is an example of this very point.

 

Edited March 29, 2016 by CA Steve

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

It would be one thing if the Church leaders claimed that they were fallible and prone to human mistakes, and were actually struggling to figure things out the same as you and I and the rest of us.

If this were the case, it wouldn't make sense to blame leaders for human failings.

The problem is that the LDS Church has gone all-in claiming doctrinal infallibility for their leaders.

We teach our members from Primary up to "follow the prophet, don't go astray," and "follow the prophet, he knows the way."

We teach our members that they should do whatever the prophet tells them to do because even if he is wrong, we will be blessed for it.

It is against this backdrop that I feel it pertinent and appropriate to blame Church leaders not for personal failings, but for getting things wrong.

Big things.

Doctrinal things.

Things like what race can and cannot have the Priesthood.

Things like what babies can and cannot have blessings.

Things like what children can and cannot be baptized.

You know . . . important stuff like that. 

I have no problem with you finding fault with bad decisions of LDS leaders (along with any other religious or political leaders), although I always hope that such criticisms will be well thought out and delivered in a civil manner.  After all, no one is going to be unchurched for calling Brother Brigham a racist.  He was a creature of this time -- as are we all.  I appreciate that Orson Pratt was willing to take some punishment from Brother Brigham for telling the truth.  All of us must be prepared to do likewise.

However, I don't see why you wish to accompany your statements here with such blatantly false claims:  The LDS Church does not teach infallibility, or that mistakes have not been made.  I repeat here the recent statement of President Dieter Uchtdorf on Saturday, October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng .

Quote

. . . to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
        I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes

Another quote from Pres Uchtodorf is instructive

Quote

My dear young friends, we are a question-asking people because we know that inquiry leads to truth. …  Inquiry is the birthplace of testimony. Some might feel embarrassed or unworthy because they have searching questions regarding the gospel, but they needn’t feel that way. Asking questions isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a precursor of growth.

God commands us to seek answers to our questions (see James 1:5–6) and asks only that we seek ‘with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ’ (Moroni 10:4). When we do so, the truth of all things can be manifested to us ‘by the power of the Holy Ghost’ (Moroni 10:5).

Fear not; ask questions. Be curious, but doubt not! Always hold fast to faith and to the light you have already received” (“The Reflection in the Water” (Church Educational System devotional, Nov 1, 2009).

Note the frankness and humility of the late Elder Bruce McConkie:

Quote

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.  CES Symposium address, BYU, Aug 18, 1978.

You are teaching false doctrine, Counselor, same as Brother McConkie used to do.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Hi Robert,

I was responding to the OP which was drawing a distinction between the Church and the Gospel and the flawed people within even the GA's. Your attempt to paint it as a false statement completely misreads what it said. You will note that I said "can" get you kicked out and I did not claim leadership claim to be lacking flaws. Those are components you ignored or added.

My reference to a perfect Church was based on the distinction the Op seemed to be making between flawed people and the Church, perhaps it was a bit better of a picture of the Church and gospel than was the OP was trying to say.

Nothing in my one line statement was meant as sarcasm, I was merely trying to point out that even if the leaders are flawed the penalty for pointing it out CAN be excommunication. Certainly people like Kate Kelly & Denver Snuffler are good examples of that possibility. The point being that it is difficult to separate leadership from the Church in the way the OP seemed to imply.

I always try and be polite Robert.

Sorry.  I guess I completely misunderstood you, Steve.  Perhaps my response to consigliere, above, will help clarify.

 

[Vanguard]

4 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

Why do so many post threads about the Church blaming it for human failings? Other do so and it is obvious they are either non-members, or only attending as small children. Everyone who is polite should be able to post, but at least be fair. We all have flaws, but is it fair to blame those flaws on the Church and the Gospel? My flaws and sins are my own and my own fault, I lay none of them at the alter of the Church and Sacrament. It is the same with every man, even General Authorities, but I have never know the GA's to blame the Church, not while GA's. It is true that in the early Church many GA's who became apostates did so.

I am not preaching or bearing testimony, only seeking to know why. I know both are against the rules, so I am not going to break them and I am hoping those who reply do not. But membership and non-membership, all should be honest about the Church and their disagreements. 

Anyway, welcome other polite opinions. 

 

For me, I have my criticisms about the church from the top down to the local leadership. Part of the problem is that there is no quarter to take my concerns/issues to. If I speak with my friends who were once members but are no longer (and I have several of them) all I get is a massive piling on of every run-of-the-mill talking point currently making the rounds on the internet against our leadership. If I speak to current friends who are active (and I am still active) I get too much deflection and what I see as blindly towing the company line ultimately seeking to scrub clean all of our leaders virtually all the way back to Adam.

Again for me, it's not so much about blame but rather recognizing that when you mix fallibility (our leaders) with claims of authority to speak on God's behalf (the authority our leaders stake a claim to) the environment becomes rife with potential emotional/psychological/mental/spiritual abuse.

What's to be done?

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry.  I guess I completely misunderstood you, Steve.  Perhaps my response to consigliere, above, will help clarify.

 

Thanks Robert.

I don't think that leaders teach infallibility either, but (and you knew there was going to be a but, right?) I do think they discourage members from discussing possible mistakes by leadership, especially current leadership. It seems strange to me on one hand that they openly acknowledge they make mistakes while on the other hand punishing some who questions whether or not they might be making one right now. I think our church would survive just fine if members were allowed more latitude in questioning the decisions of a leadership who acknowledges they make mistakes. For all we know Robert, this policy of discouraging members from openly questioning leadership might be one of those mistakes.

Edited March 30, 2016 by CA Steve

[Keq82]

I think for some (and me personally), it’s the overall hypocrisy with many of the early church leaders.  Have we ever truly held some of our church leaders accountable for their actions?  I tried to keep my response as polite as possible, but these are some of my honest concerns:      

 

For example:

 

- Joseph Smith’s polygamous/polyandrous relationships are difficult for many people to swallow.  Especially given the fact that he (Joseph Smith) would be arrested today for his actions with underage girls.  The only response I get from apologists is, presentism (it was just a different time).  It’s in no way that simple, given the fact the Joseph Smith was marrying women who already had husbands by law.  My own logicdoesn’t allow me to believe in a God that commands angels with flaming swords to marry other men’s wives.  It’s just something that I will never be able to accept.  I think Joseph Smith used the angel with a flaming sword as an excuse to engage in extremely unbecoming behavior.  That doesn’t necessarily dismiss the fact that he had spiritual experiences and was a great preacher.  And yes, we don’t practice polygamy today; however, the Celestial Order of Marriage WAS doctrine that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught.  Furthermore, it was one of the underlying reasons the saints moved to the Salt Lake Valley—to practice the Celestial Order of Marriage (e.g., polygamy).  The way the church and apologists downplay their actions, in many ways, makes people upset.  Why not call a spade a spade and admit that he was not only infallible, but that he engaged in some serious sinful behavior?  I don’t think most in the church want to admit that, unfortunately.    

 

- When I look at numerous racist statements from Brigham Young about blacks, how am I supposed to accept that it is, in fact, from God?  Are we to believe that a prophet of God was behind the power curve as it pertains to the abolition movement to prohibit slavery?  Even just years before the Civil War, in a time in which various religious and political leaders were advocating to abolish slavery, Brigham Young was in favor of slavery.  In fact, he and other Mormons in Utah owned slaves.  But I am told by apologists, it was presentism and prophets are fallible.  Why not admit that these prophets were wrong and sinned?  Not only are they fallible, but they engaged in unbecoming behavior, which is in no way acceptable. Why not try to learn from their mistakes instead of just excusing/justifying them?        

 

- Early leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would not survive a disciplinary council today:  both drank/smoke (not to mention that they each stole wives from other men), and married teenage girls. Once again, the only response from apologists is: presentism (it was simply a different time).    

 

Apologists and FAIR admit that prophets are fallible …but that is it…there is nothing after that.  There is no real accountability for many of these prophets’ actions and unbecoming behavior.  I think part of the problem is that we put prophets and our leaders on such high pedestals (as if they were heroes), we forget that some were men with MAJOR flaws.  Joseph Smith is an extremely polarizing figure; he did a lot of great things, but he was also involved in many controversial, immoral practices.  I think with many who have grown up in the church and were told from a young age that the Mormon narrative is a certain way, there is a cognitive dissonance associated with admitting our early leaders’ flaws/sins.  Until we take the next step and actually reconcile some of our rough history, this will continue to be a recursive discussion among apologists and critics.     

Edited March 30, 2016 by Keq82

[Mars]

the change in font face and weight is distracting, keq.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

For me, I have my criticisms about the church from the top down to the local leadership. Part of the problem is that there is no quarter to take my concerns/issues to. If I speak with my friends who were once members but are no longer (and I have several of them) all I get is a massive piling on of every run-of-the-mill talking point currently making the rounds on the internet against our leadership. If I speak to current friends who are active (and I am still active) I get too much deflection and what I see as blindly towing the company line ultimately seeking to scrub clean all of our leaders virtually all the way back to Adam.

Again for me, it's not so much about blame but rather recognizing that when you mix fallibility (our leaders) with claims of authority to speak on God's behalf (the authority our leaders stake a claim to) the environment becomes rife with potential emotional/psychological/mental/spiritual abuse.

What's to be done?

First, it's helpful that you are here on this board, where you will find a broad array of different views -- some actually backed by fact -- and a lot of sympathy.  So, you can share your views anonymously, and maybe get some useful feedback (ignore the rest).

Any active member who claims that there are no problems in the Church is probably deaf, dumb, and blind -- and certainly not interested in plumbing the depths of reality.  

"What's to be done?"   Well, the first step is ask questions, listen for meaningful answers, and learn some things a step at a time.  A good sense of perspective is always helpful:  For example, you speak of mixing fallibility with claims of authority to speak on God's behalf.  It might help to reflect on the obvious, historical fact that Mormon leaders have always been fallible, human leaders who made mistakes, as was the case throughout the Bible.  If you are unaware of the fact that all biblical prophets were very fallible humans, perhaps it would be helpful for you to read up on that for a while.  Paul spoke of his fellow apostles and himself as clay pots ("earthen vessels") containing treasure (2 Cor 4:7).  The whole point of the Gospel is the treasure, not the earthen vessel carrying it.  We have a very wise participant on this board who regularly fails to get that distinction, even though we regularly point it out to him.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

I think for some (and me personally), it’s the overall hypocrisy with many of the early church leaders.  Have we ever truly held some of our church leaders accountable for their actions?  I tried to keep my response as polite as possible, but these are some of my honest concerns:      

 

For example:

 

- Joseph Smith’s polygamous/polyandrous relationships are difficult for many people to swallow.  Especially given the fact that he (Joseph Smith) would be arrested today for his actions with underage girls.  The only response I get from apologists is, presentism (it was just a different time).  It’s in no way that simple, given the fact the Joseph Smith was marrying women who already had husbands by law.  My own logicdoesn’t allow me to believe in a God that commands angels with flaming swords to marry other men’s wives.  It’s just something that I will never be able to accept.  I think Joseph Smith used the angel with a flaming sword as an excuse to engage in extremely unbecoming behavior.  That doesn’t necessarily dismiss the fact that he had spiritual experiences and was a great preacher.  And yes, we don’t practice polygamy today; however, the Celestial Order of Marriage WAS doctrine that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught.  Furthermore, it was one of the underlying reasons the saints moved to the Salt Lake Valley—to practice the Celestial Order of Marriage (e.g., polygamy).  The way the church and apologists downplay their actions, in many ways, makes people upset.  Why not call a spade a spade and admit that he was not only infallible, but that he engaged in some serious sinful behavior?  I don’t think most in the church want to admit that, unfortunately.    

 

- When I look at numerous racist statements from Brigham Young about blacks, how am I supposed to accept that it is, in fact, from God?  Are we to believe that a prophet of God was behind the power curve as it pertains to the abolition movement to prohibit slavery?  Even just years before the Civil War, in a time in which various religious and political leaders were advocating to abolish slavery, Brigham Young was in favor of slavery.  In fact, he and other Mormons in Utah owned slaves.  But I am told by apologists, it was presentism and prophets are infallible.  Why not admit that these prophets were wrong and sinned?  Not only are they infallible, but they engaged in unbecoming behavior, which is in no way acceptable. Why not try to learn from their mistakes instead of just excusing/justifying them?        

 

- Early leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would not survive a disciplinary council today:  both drank/smoke (not to mention that they each stole wives from other men), and married teenage girls. Once again, the only response from apologists is: presentism (it was simply a different time).    

 

Apologists and FAIR admit that prophets are infallible…but that is it…there is nothing after that.  There is no real accountability for many of these prophets’ actions and unbecoming behavior.  I think part of the problem is that we put prophets and our leaders on such high pedestals (as if they were heroes), we forget that some were men with MAJOR flaws.  Joseph Smith is an extremely polarizing figure; he did a lot of great things, but he was also involved in many controversial, immoral practices.  I think with many who have grown up in the church and were told from a young age that the Mormon narrative is a certain way, there is a cognitive dissonance associated with admitting our early leaders’ flaws/sins.  Until we take the next step and actually reconcile some of our rough history, this will continue to be a recursive discussion among apologists and critics.     

If you have enough bile and venom for Mormon leaders, then and now, of course everything you claim must be true and horrific.  Any talk of balance or presentism is automatically an apologetic deflection.  Since you don't spend time reading non-Mormon historians and anthropologists on presentism and balanced assessments, of course it will always seem that those cussed Mormon apologists are not even-handed scholars who say pretty much the same thing you might expect from a non-Mormon professional.  All are just so wrong.  

Early Mormon leaders were simply a bunch of smoking, drinking, tobacco spitting, and wife-stealing barbarians.  And those horrible Mormon apologists are just trying to make excuses.  Simple as that.  No need for a fair-minded assessment.  Presentism uber alles.

You seem to be bingeing on that emotional approach, keq82.  Here and elsewhere.  Can you even name one non-Mormon scholar who agrees with you?  Cite his books and articles for us.

[Robert F. Smith]

24 minutes ago, Mars said:

the change in font face and weight is distracting, keq.

Is he trying to prove how divergent he can be?

[Keq82]

24 minutes ago, Mars said:

the change in font face and weight is distracting, keq.

OK. I'll make note of that next time. 

[Keq82]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you have enough bile and venom for Mormon leaders, then and now, of course everything you claim must be true and horrific.  Any talk of balance or presentism is automatically an apologetic deflection.  Since you don't spend time reading non-Mormon historians and anthropologists on presentism and balanced assessments, of course it will always seem that those cussed Mormon apologists are not even-handed scholars who say pretty much the same thing you might expect from a non-Mormon professional.  All are just so wrong.  

Early Mormon leaders were simply a bunch of smoking, drinking, tobacco spitting, and wife-stealing barbarians.  And those horrible Mormon apologists are just trying to make excuses.  Simple as that.  No need for a fair-minded assessment.  Presentism uber alles.

You seem to be bingeing on that emotional approach, keq82.  Here and elsewhere.  Can you even name one non-Mormon scholar who agrees with you?  Cite his books and articles for us.

I think pretty much all scholars (Mormon and non-Mormon) would agree that Brigham Young practiced polygamy with 55 wives (5 of which were under 18 and 11 of which were polyandrous).  In terms of Brigham Young's racist (pro-slavery) views, (I was actually just reading this the other day) below is a short excerpt from page 225 of Brigham Young Pioneer Prophet by John G. Turner.  If you can't see the loaded image, Brigham stated that the following:  "I am a firm believer in slavery" ... "inasmuch as I believe in the Bible, inasmuch as I believe in the ordinance of God, in the Priesthood and order, and decrees of God, I must believe in slavery" (pg. 225).  Do those words echo what God intended for the children of men on this earth?  Those are not my words, those are the words of a prophet who clearly believed in the practice of slavery.  Keep in mind that this book is sold at Deseret Books, so it's not one of those anti-Mormon books that is trying to lead everybody astray.  And yes, I think people should get emotional when it concerns racism, polygamy, and other disgusting practices.        

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

If prophets of God are wrong about those things, maybe a new definition of "prophets of God" is in order.

Or perhaps a revamping of one's personal list of "prophets of God."

If you are willing to take your chances with such "prophets," the odds may be very long indeed. 

 

They're not wrong. You are.

[Bobbieaware]

2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

They're not wrong. You are.

Even though there must needs be opposition in all things, the disrespectful and spiritually blind pontificators on the other side really can grate on one's nerves. 

[Rivers]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is always easier to remove the beam from our own eyes than the mote from others eyes.

I have one beam in each eye.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Keq82 said:

...FAIR admit that prophets are infallible…

No, we do not claim prophets are infallible.  No one is infallible but God.

[Keq82]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, we do not claim prophets are infallible.  No one is infallible but God.

Good catch...I meant fallible (or not infallible).  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Keq82 said:

I think pretty much all scholars (Mormon and non-Mormon) would agree that . . . .

 

Quote

Keq82 said:

I think for some (and me personally), it’s the overall hypocrisy with many of the early church leaders.  Have we ever truly held some of our church leaders accountable for their actions?  I tried to keep my response as polite as possible, but these are some of my honest concerns:      

 

For example:

 

- Joseph Smith’s polygamous/polyandrous relationships are difficult for many people to swallow.  Especially given the fact that he (Joseph Smith) would be arrested today for his actions with underage girls.  The only response I get from apologists is, presentism (it was just a different time).  It’s in no way that simple, given the fact the Joseph Smith was marrying women who already had husbands by law.  My own logicdoesn’t allow me to believe in a God that commands angels with flaming swords to marry other men’s wives.  It’s just something that I will never be able to accept.  I think Joseph Smith used the angel with a flaming sword as an excuse to engage in extremely unbecoming behavior.  That doesn’t necessarily dismiss the fact that he had spiritual experiences and was a great preacher.  And yes, we don’t practice polygamy today; however, the Celestial Order of Marriage WAS doctrine that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught.  Furthermore, it was one of the underlying reasons the saints moved to the Salt Lake Valley—to practice the Celestial Order of Marriage (e.g., polygamy).  The way the church and apologists downplay their actions, in many ways, makes people upset.  Why not call a spade a spade and admit that he was not only infallible, but that he engaged in some serious sinful behavior?  I don’t think most in the church want to admit that, unfortunately.    

 

- When I look at numerous racist statements from Brigham Young about blacks, how am I supposed to accept that it is, in fact, from God?  Are we to believe that a prophet of God was behind the power curve as it pertains to the abolition movement to prohibit slavery?  Even just years before the Civil War, in a time in which various religious and political leaders were advocating to abolish slavery, Brigham Young was in favor of slavery.  In fact, he and other Mormons in Utah owned slaves.  But I am told by apologists, it was presentism and prophets are infallible.  Why not admit that these prophets were wrong and sinned?  Not only are they infallible, but they engaged in unbecoming behavior, which is in no way acceptable. Why not try to learn from their mistakes instead of just excusing/justifying them?        

 

- Early leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would not survive a disciplinary council today:  both drank/smoke (not to mention that they each stole wives from other men), and married teenage girls. Once again, the only response from apologists is: presentism (it was simply a different time).    

 

Apologists and FAIR admit that prophets are infallible…but that is it…there is nothing after that.  There is no real accountability for many of these prophets’ actions and unbecoming behavior.  I think part of the problem is that we put prophets and our leaders on such high pedestals (as if they were heroes), we forget that some were men with MAJOR flaws.  Joseph Smith is an extremely polarizing figure; he did a lot of great things, but he was also involved in many controversial, immoral practices.  I think with many who have grown up in the church and were told from a young age that the Mormon narrative is a certain way, there is a cognitive dissonance associated with admitting our early leaders’ flaws/sins.  Until we take the next step and actually reconcile some of our rough history, this will continue to be a recursive discussion among apologists and critics.   

 

Again, do you have a non-Mormon scholar who shares these sick views, or not?  Cite his books and articles, please.  Don't start changing the goal posts, or throwing any run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon at us.  Provide us with a real scholar.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Keq82]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, do you have a non-Mormon scholar who shares these sick views, or not?  Cite his books and articles, please.  Don't start changing the goal posts, or throwing any run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon at us.  Provide us with a real scholar.

I already provided you with a reference and scholar above. For the second time, read Pioneer Prophet by John G Turner.  I'm reading this book now; and some of Brigham Young's racist, pro-slavery beliefs are found on pg. 225.  This book also talks about his practice in polygamy with over 50 wives.  These are not anti-Mormon posts; rather, they are facts about Brigham Young.  They sell this book at Deseret Book by the way, in case you only read church history books from them.  

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

It would be one thing if the Church leaders claimed that they were fallible and prone to human mistakes, and were actually struggling to figure things out the same as you and I and the rest of us.

If this were the case, it wouldn't make sense to blame leaders for human failings.

The problem is that the LDS Church has gone all-in claiming doctrinal infallibility for their leaders.

We teach our members from Primary up to "follow the prophet, don't go astray," and "follow the prophet, he knows the way."

We teach our members that they should do whatever the prophet tells them to do because even if he is wrong, we will be blessed for it.

It is against this backdrop that I feel it pertinent and appropriate to blame Church leaders not for personal failings, but for getting things wrong.

Big things.

Doctrinal things.

Things like what race can and cannot have the Priesthood.

Things like what babies can and cannot have blessings.

Things like what children can and cannot be baptized.

You know . . . important stuff like that. 

 

well said. if I could give you a rep points, I would.

[Atheist Mormon]

" but at least be fair. We all have flaws,"

That's it.....Or it isn't? I think you know very well what the reality is....

[consiglieri]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

They're not wrong. You are.

Then God is wrong.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, JAHS said:

Right. But we should of course avoid harsh criticism of our church leaders. Elder Oaks gave a good talk about this some years ago:

Criticism - Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, Feb. 1987

"Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

 

Referring to harsh criticism of church leaders, I agree. Actually, harsh criticism is to be avoided generally. Constructive criticism on the other hand is necessarily to the health of any church