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

[CA Steve]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

Therein lies the problem as I see it. For many it seems there is no such thing as "constructive [public] criticism", especially of a living general authority. When such criticism is offered , it is met with "I follow the prophet", accusations of faithlessness, apostasy and of being an "Anti-Mormon", attempts to paint the critic as attacking these leaders personally, ("are you calling (insert GA's name) a liar?", telling the critic he is endangering the faith of others, and so on. How is even possible to have a conversation about where today's leaders might be wrong with this type of reaction.

 

It is one thing to admit that leaders are flawed, but quite another to actually talk about it.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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!!!

They are men, struggling to be the best men they can, through that humility God will right any wrongs. But I never found any faith that seeks to follow gospel law more than this one, nor any that is willing to change when God works through them. If we "I" start looking and wondering how many things they might have gotten wrong. Them "we", "I" will make that our profession and obsession and find ourselves believing in nothing. It is through believing, patience and faith that God rewards us with truth and true knowledge. It is through constant doubting that he rewards us with an inability to believe nothing. As a parent, he must reward, or punish based on our behavior. I am a flawed man just as all are, so I am not going compound my flaws by feeding them, as such appetites can over anyone. As Elder McConkie said in his final address, "God grant that we walk in the light as He is in the light". Doubt is darkness, faith is light...I will walk in the light so that I can see what is right and wrong. 

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

Well, you can't get away from God. But all the actors in the play are fallible human beings. 

And dwelling on the negative would leave us always searching and never coming to the knowledge of truth. Thus leaving us grouping around in the dark...leaving us in a constant state of judging others and the promise that we will be judged as we judge. Again another example of blaming the Church for our own human failings. We are called by scripture to be better people, why not do so. 

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Therein lies the problem as I see it. For many it seems there is no such thing as "constructive [public] criticism", especially of a living general authority. When such criticism is offered , it is met with "I follow the prophet", accusations of faithlessness, apostasy and of being an "Anti-Mormon", attempts to paint the critic as attacking these leaders personally, ("are you calling (insert GA's name) a liar?", telling the critic he is endangering the faith of others, and so on. How is even possible to have a conversation about where today's leaders might be wrong with this type of reaction.

 

It is one thing to admit that leaders are flawed, but quite another to actually talk about it.

I agree - it's a silly idea that we can't constructively criticize decisions of church leaders without being "traitors" in some way. Actually it's worse than silly - it's harmful to the health of the church 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

And dwelling on the negative would leave us always searching and never coming to the knowledge of truth. Thus leaving us grouping around in the dark...leaving us in a constant state of judging others and the promise that we will be judged as we judge. Again another example of blaming the Church for our own human failings. We are called by scripture to be better people, why not do so. 

Oh, I agree, we shouldn't dwell on the negative. On the other hand, ignoring it will not make it go away. 

It should be less about judging leaders and more about discussing the rightness or wrongness of positions. 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Keq82 said:

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.  

So your response is to change the goal posts, as here, and claim that you have found a scholar who agrees with some changed claims, which I did not ask you about.  Does this mean that you are now denying that your earlier claims are true, and that you overreached?  For you are manifestly unable to find a real non-Mormon scholar who will support your earlier sick views (views you stated explicitly, but which you now disown).  What's it gonna be?

[CA Steve]

23 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

And dwelling on the negative would leave us always searching and never coming to the knowledge of truth. Thus leaving us grouping around in the dark...leaving us in a constant state of judging others and the promise that we will be judged as we judge. Again another example of blaming the Church for our own human failings. We are called by scripture to be better people, why not do so. 

When a Church leader talks about the problems within the church for something like pornography, are they blaming the Church? Are they dwelling on the negative?

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So your response is to change the goal posts, as here, and claim that you have found a scholar who agrees with some changed claims, which I did not ask you about.  Does this mean that you are now denying that your earlier claims are true, and that you overreached?  For you are manifestly unable to find a real non-Mormon scholar who will support your earlier sick views (views you stated explicitly, but which you now disown).  What's it gonna be?

Actually, you asked me the following:

"Can you even name one Mormon scholar who agrees with you? "

For the third time, John G. Turner is a non-Mormon scholar who wrote a great book on Brigham Young (I've already provided the reference twice).  In his book, he illustrates how Brigham Young practiced polygamy and was pro slavery, which I wrote about in my original post.  There is no way to win an arugment that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young didn't practice polygamy and that Brigham Young wasn't pro slavery.  No, I didn't overreach--what did I state about either Brigham Young or Joseph Smith that wasn't true?  You might not agree with my "sick" opinion on these two early prophets, but you obviously can't accept that both were engaged in some extremely controversial practices.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It should be less about judging leaders and more about discussing the rightness or wrongness of positions.

Brigham Young JD 4:297-8

Were I to be asked whether I have any experience in this matter, I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty, and I would be left, as brother Hooper observed, upon the brink of the precipice, ready to plunge into what we may call the gulf of infidelity, ready to believe neither in God nor His servants, and to say that there is no God, or, if there is, we do not know anything about Him; that we are here, and by and by shall go from here, and that is all we shall know. Such persons are like those whom the Apostle calls “As natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed.” Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.

I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.

If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say “I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him.” A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I agree - it's a silly idea that we can't constructively criticize decisions of church leaders without being "traitors" in some way. Actually it's worse than silly - it's harmful to the health of the church 

Seems many do so daily here, or do you want a more public forum like Sacrament meeting, Stake Conference or General Conference? Maybe the Church should spend every meeting for a year listing real or precieved faults. It is not harmful to the healt of the Church, it is a need for many to settle old scores...which is harmful to the health of those persons. I marvel and the lack of faith that one day God through those who serve him will right the Ark. I also weep for those who will never know it by having lost faith in everything they once held dear. The Church is supposed to be a lighthouse to keep us from making a shipwreck of our faith, and Christ the "Perfect Light" to help us not make a shipwreck of our souls. Sadly this blinded by doubt cannot see either light. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Oh, I agree, we shouldn't dwell on the negative. On the other hand, ignoring it will not make it go away. 

It should be less about judging leaders and more about discussing the rightness or wrongness of positions. 

You say you agree and then go back to the negative, that is called the "kiss me kick me method", when debating. I just don't want to see my former brothers and sister standing on the sidewalk yelling at women and children, as so many other have and still do. But enough, I can see we are not going to agree, so I won't try to reason with you anymore. Let's just agree to disagree. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

When a Church leader talks about the problems within the church for something like pornography, are they blaming the Church? Are they dwelling on the negative?

No, but if you actually read my OP, you would know that is not what I was talking about. Not sure why you are trying to misrepresent the OP? Also as you know they speak of such things for about 10% of the talk and 90% of the Hope the Gospel and repentance offers everyone. But you made my point, but there can still be joy and rejoicing for us all when we fully open our eyes to the entire truth and not just our complants. The reason we are told to sustain our leaders and not speak evil of the Lord's anointed, is because we would others would do the same for us. Also it is God's commandments, the early Apostles we flawed men as well, God calls flawed men and women because there is nothing else to choose from...so what do we do throw out every doctrine from Adam to the present? As Paul used to say, "Heaven forbid". Also if you disagree with what I am saying you don't have to respond, I don't mind...I,just don't want to be upset or angry. 

[Vanguard]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Thank you, sir.  We would all do well to remember the "earthen vessel containing treasure" analogy. I also believe the brethren are evolving in a good direction as they not only acknowledge with greater frequency their own fallibility but are also learning to make it clear to their constituency when they are speaking for themselves and not on behalf of the church. I believe so much confusion could have been avoided had our past and present leadership at all levels better honored this very important issue.  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Actually, you asked me the following:

"Can you even name one Mormon scholar who agrees with you? "

...................................................

All right.  If you have now repented   and are ready to reply to my original challenge, please go back to your original set of false claims and try to find justification for them in a book or article by a real non-Mormon scholar.  Cite by page number in support of each claim.  Of course you cannot, and that's why you changed the goal posts.  However, I stand ready to eat my words.  As they say in Missouri:  Show me.

[Keq82]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All right.  If you have now repented   and are ready to reply to my original challenge, please go back to your original set of false claims and try to find justification for them in a book or article by a real non-Mormon scholar.  Cite by page number in support of each claim.  Of course you cannot, and that's why you changed the goal posts.  However, I stand ready to eat my words.  As they say in Missouri:  Show me.

You should enyoy some of Brigham Young's amazing/inspiring words since you can't read what I wrote three times already.  You only had one question, which I already answered.  Keep drinking your orange drink!  

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

You should enyoy some of Brigham Young's amazing/inspiring words since you can't read what I wrote three times already.  You only had one question, which I already answered.  Keep drinking your orange drink!  

Why do you do this? We have heard these hundreds of times before. I don't trust what was recorded in the JOD.  It was a semimonthly subscription publication privately printed in Liverpool, England, where the speakers talks were recorded in shorthand and then reproduced some time later in England; no doubt producing some errors and misunderstandings on what was said or meant.  It has never served in the past as a source for official Church teachings or scripture. It reflects the personal feelings, opinions, and speculations of the writers and/or speakers of the time as they spoke extemporaneously at the pulpit. And even though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. What was written was not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. And because of line upon line learning we know more now than we knew back then about God and His doctrines. 

 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Why do you do this? We have heard these hundreds of times before. I don't trust what was recorded in the JOD.  It was a semimonthly subscription publication privately printed in Liverpool, England, where the speakers talks were recorded in shorthand and then reproduced some time later in England; no doubt producing some errors and misunderstandings on what was said or meant....

 

And some intentional rewriting by George Watt.  I have no clue if these are accurate or not, just suggestion caution should be taken.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Calm

[Keq82]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Why do you do this? We have heard these hundreds of times before. I don't trust what was recorded in the JOD.  It was a semimonthly subscription publication privately printed in Liverpool, England, where the speakers talks were recorded in shorthand and then reproduced some time later in England; no doubt producing some errors and misunderstandings on what was said or meant.  It has never served in the past as a source for official Church teachings or scripture. It reflects the personal feelings, opinions, and speculations of the writers and/or speakers of the time as they spoke extemporaneously at the pulpit. And even though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. What was written was not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. And because of line upon line learning we know more now than we knew back then about God and His doctrines. 

 

As members, we should all be ashamed that early prophets taught and practiced such awful practices.  Polygamy WAS doctrine; Brigham Young openly was in favor of slavery.  Of course the church says the JOD are no longer doctrine, because the doctrine they taught was disgraceful.  

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

As members, we should all be ashamed

Are you really a member? Of course polygamy was doctrine; it still is, although we do not practice it now. Slavery was a legal accepted practice back then and Young believed in the curse of Cain which put the blacks in a position to be slaves. We know better now; he probably does too. Because of what I already explained the Church never accepted the JOD as "official" doctrine; just reports of what some church leaders said at the pulpit, things which may have been right or wrong.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Keq82 said:

You should enyoy some of Brigham Young's amazing/inspiring words since you can't read what I wrote three times already.  You only had one question, which I already answered.  

......................................................

False.  You have yet to answer my original challenge, and now I make it a formal CFR, since you are in denial.  This requires that you either respond with sources or accept that you were wrong.  Read the rules of this board.

Here is your original set of false claims, and I can number them for you if you cannot:

On 3/30/2016 at 9:07 PM, 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.   

Edited March 31, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Keq82 said:

As members, we should all be ashamed that early prophets taught and practiced such awful practices.  Polygamy WAS doctrine; Brigham Young openly was in favor of slavery.  Of course the church says the JOD are no longer doctrine, because the doctrine they taught was disgraceful.  

CFR on these statements also.  Do I need to number them for you?  I expect full documentation, including quotations.  Of course you have no such sources.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Thank you, sir.  We would all do well to remember the "earthen vessel containing treasure" analogy. I also believe the brethren are evolving in a good direction as they not only acknowledge with greater frequency their own fallibility but are also learning to make it clear to their constituency when they are speaking for themselves and not on behalf of the church. I believe so much confusion could have been avoided had our past and present leadership at all levels better honored this very important issue.  

Actually, they did, but sometimes well-meaning yokels just don't listen.  Joseph and Brigham made that point time and again, but people are still not listening with open ears.  Jesus faced the same problem with those having eyes and ears who could neither see nor hear.

[sdc999]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

CFR on these statements also.  Do I need to number them for you?  I expect full documentation, including quotations.  Of course you have no such sources.

Keg82.  Your teacher has spoken.  If you do not turn in your assignment, you will have to stay for after school detention and you will receive demerits.  You may also have to wear the 'dunce' hat and sit in the corner.

[sdc999]

IMO, part of the 'blame the church' stems from the talks from the pulpit.  It is easy on the church side to disassociate from those talks as they are just members verbalizing their own beliefs.  Who knows what may come out of their mouths?  I didn't do this all the time, but on occasion, I did get up and walk out on someone who began their talk with, "I put off preparing until midnight last night but I was able to throw something together".  My wife would get mad. I viewed it as a complete disrespecting of my time and a disrespecting of the Lord's time. I could and would read my scriptures in the car or the hallway.  

Those on the inside will often state that the church and the members are separate.  The church (gospel) is true but the members are fallible.  I agree with the latter statement but not the first.  Church members and the gospel are the church.  When members (and this can include the bishopric as well) get up in front to speak and continue to talk "lore" from the pulpit without correction, then that construes acceptance by the church.  So when a member gets opposing information down the road, they often put themselves in a bad position by defending the lore.  When this goes on long enough and realization and truth set in, the member begins to question what they have learned from the church.  Some will reason things out and stay and some cannot reason things out and leave.   The essays were a good start for the church - although not publicized very much.  My BIL, a former high councilor, had never heard of them.  This is the same HC that educated me on polygamous marriages that were the result of too many men dying on the trek and women needed to be taken care of.  

So, in the end, I don't think someone leaving the church can be construed as human failing. The church does have some responsibility.   Leaving Christ altogether IS a human failing which falls upon the individual and not the church.   

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

I don't trust what was recorded in the JOD. It has never served in the past as a source for official Church teachings or scripture.

Well that's only sort of true.  The Journals have been referenced in Conference talks, the Ensign, and Church manuals over the years.  Doesn't that make them a source for official Church teachings?

Quote

And even though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents.

I feel the same way about the Ensign and current Church manuals.