Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is there any reason why you saw the need to link to the same article I Iinked to in the post to which you responded?

I said it was erroneously reported in the news media, and yes, I include our writer as one of those who made the error. Had I been covering the story that day (and had circumstances been just a bit different, I might well have been), I would not have used the term "apology" in my report. It was nowhere in the statement that Elder (now President) Eyring made that day.

It seemed to be implied that the "news media" who called it an "apology" were somehow biased or operating off nefarious motives.  It just strikes me as funny that the Church's own newspaper says that the Church is "apologizing" at the same time you're arguing that they didn't and shouldn't.

Quote

CEDAR CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a long-awaited apology Tuesday for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah.

Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve read the church's statement on assignment from the church's governing First Presidency during a memorial ceremony at the gravesite of some of the massacre victims at Mountain Meadows, about 35 miles northwest of St. George.

The statement also places blame for the Sept. 11, 1857, massacre on the local church leaders at the time and church members who followed their orders to murder some 120 unarmed men, women and children.

"We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time," Elder Eyring said.

 

Sorry, but the definition of "Apology" is " a statement saying that you are sorry about something : an expression of regret for having done or said something wrong."

When President Eyring says "We", who is he referring to?  Is he speaking only for the First Presidency?  The BYU Alumni Association?  The article is pretty specific in noting that the massacre was carried out by local leaders and members of the LDS Church (not "a group of local settlers who just happened to all be members of the same church"), so I think the "we" is President Eyring speaking for the Church, and the "regret" is an apology.

If it isn't an apology, it makes no sense.  It would be like me going to the forest outside of Warsaw, gathering some reporters, and saying "I, Cinepro, who am not Polish nor Russian, express profound regret for the massacre of Polish soldiers perpetrated here at the end of World War II."  The response would be a well deserved "so what?"

If President Eyring isn't speaking for the Church, and he isn't apologizing, then the question should be "So what?", and that should have been the news story.  The Deseret News should have asked "Why is Henry Eyring expressing "regret" for something he had nothing to do with?"

Edited August 17, 2016 by cinepro

[Bernard Gui]

On August 16, 2016 at 9:53 AM, DBMormon said:

10.)  He says we need to Incorporate more diversity into our church ( race, gender, economic status. sexual orientation, and other differences)

Race, economic status....check. Doing ok there IMO.

Gender...ordain women and we solve this?

Sexual orientation....temple sealings for all types of relationships or just selected ones?

What other forms of diversity should the Church embrace? 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Within the context of this discussion, I think you know what I meant, no?

Perhaps he needs it spelled out.

Nephi beheld in vision that the church of the Lamb of God would be over all the face of the earth but that its numbers would be few by reason of the devil and his influence. It's a prophecy of the last days -- the days we're living in right now.

I think some want the Church to surrender its values, standards, unique doctrines, etc. so that it will be more appealing to the world and thus bring in droves and droves of people. I think if the Church were to do that, those who wish for such a thing would find themselves sorely disappointed. The expected influx wold not materialize. Meanwhile the Church would have been redefined out of existence.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In speaking of a more "Christian view" of a prophet, he is perhaps using "Christian" as a synonym for sectarian, a view that would have the prophet be more "naïve, unsophisticated, and mendacious."

I think he is very clear what he means.  One needs to look at what he says in the paragraph to support his point which is completely and totally focused on the issue of prophetic infallibility.  "Christian" here must therefore in my view refer to how the Christian scriptures treat prophets.  And they definitely don't treat them as infallible.

"One of the key tasks before us is developing a better, more sophisticated, and frankly more Christian theology of prophets and prophethood. We have treated our prophets too often as demigods. We do not believe in prophetic infallibility. This cannot be said enough, and it cannot be taken seriously enough. We give it lip service but too often do not believe it, nor consider its implications, other than the intellectually lazy conclusion that the whole thing must either be all true or a complete fraud. . . . We need to think harder about why we should…sustain prophets and apostles whom we know will occasionally be wrong about certain things. We don’t always know what those things are except in hindsight, because we were usually all wrong together. . . . We still have a lot of work to do. . . ."

I think if one looks outside his text to make connections, errors will be made in interpretation.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

It's not that hard to understand.

Can you point out anywhere on the Church website (any talk, article, lesson...anywhere) where LDS are taught that current leaders are fallible, that they might teach or publish something that isn't true, and what to do when the member realizes that such a mistake has been made?

Because as far as I can tell, the Church only teaches theoretical fallibility (i.e. "long-dead Prophets may have been mistaken about stuff, so look to the current less fallible leaders to correct them") and not actual, functional fallibility (i.e. "Current leaders are fallible, so keep an eye out for mistakes and here's what to do if the Prophet does say something that isn't true from the pulpit.")

 

Ah come on. I'm not going to chase down the quotes but Pres. Uchrdorf has flat out said leaders have made mistakes. In conference. It doesn't get more official. The News Room also defines doctrine as not being individual opinions. It does add the qualifier of well considered  or something but also flat out says sometimes leaders are just giving opinions. I think it is very unreasonable and very unfair to demand that they denounce one another's statements in the present. It often takes time to realize mistakes for one thing. And....you can't have it both ways. We have had discussions here about ho.w the essays have undone some members because they found out prophets make mistakes. You can certainly blame the Church for not coming out with it sooner but you cannot blame them for never coming out with it.

As to what to do when members see a mistake....that is a hard one. The first thing that needs to be done is to get rid of that horrific meme "prophets will never lead us astray." That one falls under not everything a leader says.....

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

It seemed to be implied that the "news media" who called it an "apology" were somehow biased or operating off nefarious motives. 

So now you're quoting to me from the same article I linked to initially? Like I don't know what's in it?

Are you sure you're not trying to save face for your blunder of quoting my post and then responding to me with the same link I had included in my post?

And if I were trying to accuse news media of "nefarious motives," why would I do it by linking to an article from the newspaper I myself work for?

Why don't you just admit that in your haste you didn't bother to note that I had already linked to the same article you were about to link to?

Quote

It just strikes me as funny that the Church's own newspaper says that the Church is "apologizing" at the same time you're arguing that they didn't and shouldn't.

The Deseret News is not the Church and, contrary to ill-informed assumption, the Church does not micro-manage the day-to-day operation of the newspaper. And the Deseret News staff is not infallible, any more than you are. Sometimes it makes errors. Sometimes you do -- like giving me the same link I had already provided in the post you were quoting. You really ended up with egg on your face from that one.

But hey, that's OK. Nobody's perfect, right?

My hunch is that the writer of the article, like many people (including you apparently), do not grasp the nuanced difference in meaning between apology and expression of regret.

Quote

Sorry, but the definition of "Apology" is " a statement saying that you are sorry about something : an expression of regret for having done or said something wrong."

I know what it means. Again, the Church in this instance did not do wrong. It was the perpetrators of the mass killings who did wrong. Therefore, according to the definition you give here, the apology should come from the killers, not the Church -- though the Church can certainly express profound regret, which it has already done.

Quote

When President Eyring says "We", who is he referring to?  Is he speaking only for the First Presidency? 

Obviously, he is referring to the Church. I'm not disputing that. But he is speaking for the Church in giving a "profound expression of regret," not an apology. Neither he nor anyone else living today can apologize for something that took place in 1857.

Quote

The article is pretty specific in noting that the massacre was carried out by local leaders and members of the LDS Church (not "a group of local settlers who just happened to all be members of the same church"), ...

Yes, he was fixing blame where it belongs: On local Church leaders and members who were there on site and who perpetrated the murders. Nowhere in his statement is there anything saying that blame/culpability/fault rests with the Church as an institution -- either then or now. And nowhere in the formal statement he read does the word apologize appear.

By your logic, the Church bears responsibility for any and all crimes committed by members or local leaders of the Church. That's the reductio ad absurdum. Are you willing to go there?

 

Quote

... so I think the "we" is President Eyring speaking for the Church, and the "regret" is an apology.

No it is not an apology. There is a difference. To express regret is to say you wish something had not happened. To apologize is to accept fault and blame for it.

Quote

If it isn't an apology, it makes no sense.  ...

Of course it makes sense.

When the Illinois state delegation came here to Salt Lake City some years ago to deliver a resolution passed by the General Assembly expressing regret for the atrocities committed against the Mormons in the state in the 1840s, I was profoundly moved. I thought it a very kind, magnanimous gesture, and I felt grateful to them for it. I keenly felt that the Mormons who lived back then were being honored and vindicated.

But I clearly recognized that the delegation present that day and the Illinois legislature were not apologizing, nor should they. It was not they who committed the atrocities. It was not their government that contributed or acquiesced to them. In fact, at the news conference, I asked if any in the delegation had ancestors who were residents in that region of Illinois at the time the atrocities were committed or who were members of the mobs; none of them did.
 

Quote

 

If President Eyring isn't speaking for the Church, and he isn't apologizing, then the question should be "So what?", and that should have been the news story. 

The Deseret News should have asked "Why is Henry Eyring expressing "regret" for something he had nothing to do with?"

 

Answered above. An expression of regret is a meaningful gesture -- but it is not an apology.

Incidentally, if you think what Elder Eyring did was an apology, you're clearly at odds with Patrick Mason. Why would he be calling for athe Church to apologize for Mountain Meadows if it had already done so?

Edited August 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Flexible said:

And incidentally, examples of what I am saying are abundant in this forum.  I am always amazed at the vitriolic, defensive, and arrogant comments by many of the legacy posters here to anything that threatens their correlated, comfortable positions. Is this the  "intellectually laziness"  Patrick was referring to?  The idea that one can't be a faithful, covenant-keeping member unless they kneel at the altar of Correlation is, in my opinion, an example of the "rigid and brittle" framework Patrick was describing as not able to withstand scrutiny.

What you are not understanding is that when one is- pardon the expression, "flexible" with paradigms, the "Correlation" paradigm becomes just as valid as any other

I have no problem with "Correlation" or the church as it is.  The only problem with the church is that it is not appealing to secular people.  It will either figure out how to do that or die.

It's just a fact of life, UNLESS we see some massive disasters which will demonstrate the folly the world is going and honest folks will be driven to the church for refuge.

To me that is just as real a possible scenario as any.   As far as I am concerned the world may "really be" 6,000 years old.  Bertrand Russell famously argued that he could not prove the world was not created 5 minutes ago and all our memories implanted.   Obviously he did not think that likely at all, but logically it cannot be disproven.

I just want the church to prosper and I hold philosophical positions which I think will help the church understand secular thought and see it as totally unthreatening as I do.

There is nothing in secularism that can harm the church if you understand it

I just see that as an opportunity.  People die and new thought patterns take over all institutions.  Scientism has damaged all religious beliefs seriously, and yet there is no reason for it to have done so.  Guys like Dawkins are idiots who do not understand philosophy, and even atheists today, like Rorty understand that atheism is just another paradigm like religion itself- and that one is not "better" than the other.

So the church can learn that and prosper, or ignore that opportunity at their peril.   That decision is not up to me.   With divine guidance, I am certain they will not let the opportunity pass and guys like Mason, Bushman. Paulsen, Faulconer, Givens and virtually every intellectual writer in the church today are pounding home that same position.

The GA's are seeing it, with the new essays.   We see conference talks speaking about how the prophets are not infallible

I think the great ship is turning and it will take years for the fundies to ..... disappear, but the rudder is already set in a new direction.

But if they stay, such is life.  I will look back and say I was wrong if indeed I was.  No biggie.   I am here for keeps.

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think he is very clear what he means.  One needs to look at what he says in the paragraph to support his point which is completely and totally focused on the issue of prophetic infallibility.  "Christian" here must therefore in my view refer to how the Christian scriptures treat prophets.  And they definitely don't treat them as infallible.

"One of the key tasks before us is developing a better, more sophisticated, and frankly more Christian theology of prophets and prophethood. We have treated our prophets too often as demigods. We do not believe in prophetic infallibility. This cannot be said enough, and it cannot be taken seriously enough. We give it lip service but too often do not believe it, nor consider its implications, other than the intellectually lazy conclusion that the whole thing must either be all true or a complete fraud. . . . We need to think harder about why we should…sustain prophets and apostles whom we know will occasionally be wrong about certain things. We don’t always know what those things are except in hindsight, because we were usually all wrong together. . . . We still have a lot of work to do. . . ."

I think if one looks outside his text to make connections, errors will be made in interpretation.

I was referring here to Bernard, not Patrick.

Sorry I phrased it so confusingly.

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

1.  LDS doctrine and policies are pretty clear and readily available.  Which ones are you having a problem with? 

I don't have a problem, all I am saying that God is suppose to decide the doctrines and policies of the church. Do you disagree with that?

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

2.  Maybe the "A" was too easy and the course work not rigorous enough.  My reason for saying that and for recommending science and philosophy courses is because you show no sign of understanding those matters.  You might also want to pay closer attention to what Mark Bukowski has to say on this board -- he is right on the money.

Do missionaries recommend science and philosophy courses? I simply want to know how to detect the Holy Ghost, if it is real. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

3.  Once again, if you sincerely want to understand the Holy Spirit and to get in touch with him, you need to take a closer look at yourself.  Or as Bapu used to say, you need to turn the searchlight inward.  That is why I recommended learning the meditative discipline of an Eastern religion.  You need to become familiar with the basics.  You might also profit from considering the teachings on that question from the late Elder Richard G. Scott: 

 or you can tell me in your own words. 

Eastern religion teach reiki healings and chi, do you believe that? 

 

It will be nice if you tell me in your own words how can we know the Holy Ghost is not the result of patternicity, hallucination(minor brain stroke), the Improbability Principle, false memory?"

Edited August 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was referring here to Bernard, not Patrick.

Sorry I phrased it so confusingly.

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I don't have a problem, all I am saying that God is suppose to decide the doctrines and policies of the church. Do you disagree with that?

You are in denial, Skeptic.  All messages from God go through human filters, and are further diluted through communication to other humans.  Church doctrine (presumably official and approved as canonical) is not the same as policy, which is a matter of human concepts and actions put in place to enable coherent function of the church as an institution.  The latter is constantly changeable and malleable to suit the needs of priesthood and church.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Do missionaries recommend science and philosophy courses? I simply want to know how to detect the Holy Ghost, if it is real. 

 or you can tell me in your own words. 

Eastern religion teach reiki healings and chi, do you believe that? 

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

I specified which types of Eastern meditative discipline I was recommending.  Your non sequitur reply shows that you are unable to intellectually track and understand my comment at all, or are not disposed to listen.  Thus, I have made a serious recommendation of further college study as well.  You show no sign of understanding basic logic or discourse.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It will be nice if you tell me in your own words how can we know the Holy Ghost is not the result of patternicity, hallucination(minor brain stroke), the Improbability Principle, false memory?"

I gave you some excellent recommendations as to how to go about that, but you appear to be avoiding coming to grips with any of them.  Why?  Have you actually tried them?  Which ones failed and why?  Or are you to lazy to make the effort?  I expect you to engage with those serious recommendations, and to tell me what you think of them.  It is called discussion, Skeptic.  Why are you so afraid of discussion?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

O.K., Mark,

So what future do you see for Mormonism in, say, a hundred years?  Is progressive revelation evolutionary, or is revelation profressively evolutionary? And do you see any problem for the faith, if Jesus doesn't return within a reasonable time span?  And, if he does return in glory, does that cut short any revelatory evolution?

Well, when He returns in glory I think who is in charge will be crystal clear, and all bets are off!

But historically new paradigms are always resisted by fundamentalists who think they understand "how things really are"- THAT is always the bottom line.  In a sense you can see Bellarmine vs Galileo BOTH arguing about "what really is" but Bellarmine insisting that the apparent conflict would destroy the scriptures.

That is similar to what you hear from the Creationists and the ID folks- they seem to think that a young earth position and ID is a necessary belief to maintain belief in the scriptures.

The argument really has not advanced in 500 years- it's still the old Cartesian belief that science and religion are incompatible because of literalism - that because both models refer to the origins of the earth they are giving two different and conflicting stories about the same thing

But even the most fundamentalist of the fundamentalists would ague today that the idea that the earth rotates around the sun conflicts with scripture.  We have at least gotten that far into understanding scripture vs "science".  Virtually no religious person is a flat-earther today, no matter how fundamentalist they are.  The position has become extinct.  

I see that as an analogy for what will happen with the evolution argument- eventually everyone will understand that evolution has nothing to do with, nor does it conflict with, the Adam and Eve story.

If we examine history there are thousands of odd ideas which people held with certainty which are now "dead" positions.  The ideas could not survive cultural changes.  One relevant example for Mormons is the idea that blacks were "less valiant" in the pre-earth life.   That has become an untenable position socially, logically, and in every other way. It is an extinct view for all practical purposes- it no longer explains anything useful in today's culture.

But by understanding contextual truth, paradigms and language games, it is clear that science and religion are NOT even speaking the same "language".  Religion is about what gives meaning and importance to aspects of our lives, and science is about creating useful models for how the world works, in essence it is now 

This Wittgensteinian view of what is now known as "language games" and the idea that the same observation in a different context can yield different truths is actually much older than Wittgenstein-  It goes back to Hume I think with his view of causation and his understanding the defining the "cause" of any event is largely a linguistic exercise.

With that, away went the idea of God as the "first cause" for thinking people because in fact there was no need to postulate such a thing, because causality itself could not be clearly defined.  

So what is the future of religion?  This is an interesting book, 

Quote

 

Though coming from different and distinct intellectual traditions, Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo are united in their criticism of the metaphysical tradition. The challenges they put forward extend beyond philosophy and entail a reconsideration of the foundations of belief in God and the religious life. They urge that the rejection of metaphysical truth does not necessitate the death of religion; instead it opens new ways of imagining what it is to be religious -- ways that emphasize charity, solidarity, and irony. This unique collaboration, which includes a dialogue between the two philosophers, is notable not only for its fusion of pragmatism (Rorty) and hermeneutics (Vattimo) but also for its recognition of the limits of both traditional religious belief and modern secularism.

In "Anticlericalism and Atheism" Rorty discusses Vattimo's work Belief and argues that the end of metaphysics paves the way for an anti-essentialist religion. Rorty's conception of religion, determined by private motives, is designed to produce the gospel's promise that henceforth God will not consider humanity as a servant but as a friend. In "The Age of Interpretation," Vattimo, who is both a devout Catholic and a frequent critic of the church, explores the surprising congruence between Christianity and hermeneutics in light of the dissolution of metaphysical truth. As in hermeneutics, interpretation is central to Christianity, which introduced the world to the principle of interiority, dissolving the experience of objective reality into "listening to and interpreting messages."

The lively dialogue that concludes this volume, moderated and edited by Santiago Zabala, analyzes the future of religion together with the political, social, and historical aspects that characterize our contemporary postmodern, postmetaphysical, and post-Christian world.

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007QXW7SW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

This was written by atheists who still see the need for a "religion" understood as the search for meaning in our lives.

This may be  little to jargon filled for the general reader of this board, but what it says is that religion will become more humanistic because it is about what is IMPORTANT to humans and not in conflict with science, again using this idea of "hermeneutics" or interpretive language games and paradigms I just elaborated upon

Mormons as social constructivists are perfectly poised to capitalize on this trend since we stress the family of man, and the idea that God himself is a human and we are created in his image.  We embody the exact values these atheists are looking for, but cannot see because they have not even conceived of the idea that God could himself be a HUMAN or at least a being LIKE us but infinitely more "evolved" or "above" us in intelligence. 

THIS is exactly what these secularists are looking for!!

So to answer your questions Bob directly- I think that the world intellectually is evolving in our direction with books like this one.

I think we are evolving in the direction of secularism as shown here by Patrick Mason.

Inevitably these two "galaxies" of thought will merge, and I think that the outer "arms" of these figurative galaxies are already feeling the gravity of the other and will be drawn together faster and faster as things progress

Secular people still need meaning in their lives, and we need to understand the philosophy of secularism to make sense of religion itself.  We cannot go on with this ridiculous 500 year old argument which arguably started with Bellarmine vs Galileo.   It is a dead argument, it has no basis and cannot possibly survive. Fundamentalism will become extinct as the religious flat-earthers have.

Just look at this board- we have a thread on evolution and there are fewer and fewer each time who defend the position that evolution is incompatible with the scriptures

That USED to be a major topic around here- and now very few hold that position.   Why not? Partially because it doesn't work but honestly because it just becomes more and more socially unacceptable to hold that position as time goes forward.

People just don't accept it any more.  BYU teaches evolution, we have numerous statements by the church that the church is neutral on it, etc

And now BYU is teaching phenomenology as a philosophy.  All the little philosophers at BYU are learning from Adam Miller and Faulconer and Paulsen the Pragmatism and on it goes.

It's just a matter of time.

Phew- that was a long one

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

It's not that hard to understand.

Can you point out anywhere on the Church website (any talk, article, lesson...anywhere) where LDS are taught that current leaders are fallible, that they might teach or publish something that isn't true, and what to do when the member realizes that such a mistake has been made?

Because as far as I can tell, the Church only teaches theoretical fallibility (i.e. "long-dead Prophets may have been mistaken about stuff, so look to the current less fallible leaders to correct them") and not actual, functional fallibility (i.e. "Current leaders are fallible, so keep an eye out for mistakes and here's what to do if the Prophet does say something that isn't true from the pulpit.")

(I'll also point out that the Church also seems to use the word "fallible" as a non sequitur when it comes to leaders, as if acknowledging "fallibility" means that they burn the toast sometimes or might make mistakes in other areas not related to teaching or leading the Church.  It's never used in a way that acknowledges they might teach something that isn't true from the pulpit.)

Despite your false quotations above (which some simpletons will consider real), along with a rider demanding that apriori direction must be given as to what to do when a mistake has been made, you yourself provide an excellent instance of a LDS Church apology in your reply to Scott Lloyd.  Of course Scott is wrong to deny that is an apology, even if a bit late.  And while it is true that local LDS leaders carried out the murders without Brigham's permission, Brother Brigham should have sought immediately to punish the top leaders in that case -- even though it was in the midst of the Utah War.  John D. Lee's execution was certainly justified, but came much too late for my taste.

Surely you are aware of Pres Dieter Uchtdorf's timely comments:

Quote

And 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.  LDS General Conference, October 5, 2013, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

Mormons in the 19th century witnessed plenty of upheavals in the LDS community, making it clear that mistakes were being made.  Leaders vying for leadership could not all be right.  Later in the Utah Territory, Brother Brigham and Orson Pratt had a couple of big rows over ordination of Blacks, as well as over Adam-God doctrine, with Pratt the loser then and the victor today.  Everybody knew that Brigham took away his seniority.  There was a very bumpy transition from polygyny to monogamy.  In the 20th century a couple of apostles were excommunicated, aside from the squabbles internal to the Twelve.  Pretending that none of that happened will not make it go away.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

It's not that hard to understand.

Can you point out anywhere on the Church website (any talk, article, lesson...anywhere) where LDS are taught that current leaders are fallible, that they might teach or publish something that isn't true, and what to do when the member realizes that such a mistake has been made?

Because as far as I can tell, the Church only teaches theoretical fallibility (i.e. "long-dead Prophets may have been mistaken about stuff, so look to the current less fallible leaders to correct them") and not actual, functional fallibility (i.e. "Current leaders are fallible, so keep an eye out for mistakes and here's what to do if the Prophet does say something that isn't true from the pulpit.")

(I'll also point out that the Church also seems to use the word "fallible" as a non sequitur when it comes to leaders, as if acknowledging "fallibility" means that they burn the toast sometimes or might make mistakes in other areas not related to teaching or leading the Church.  It's never used in a way that acknowledges they might teach something that isn't true from the pulpit.)

Quote

 

Mistakes of Imperfect People

And, 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 be perfect only 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.

In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”6

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed.

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng&_r=1

You really should listen to conference sometimes

[TheSkepticChristian]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are in denial, Skeptic.  All messages from God go through human filter

So how do you explain Moroni 7?  Why is it so similar to Paul again?

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Church doctrine (presumably official and approved as canonical) is not the same as policy, which is a matter of human concepts and actions put in place to enable coherent function of the church as an institution.  The latter is constantly changeable and malleable to suit the needs of priesthood and church.

In recent General Conference, an apostle said all decisions and policies come from God, I am trying to find it. I can't remember who and I can't remember the exact words, but it will be nice if someone helps me. 

Elder Nelson said the church policy on the children of gay couples comes from God.  

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I specified which types of Eastern meditative discipline I was recommending.  

Okay

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I gave you some excellent recommendations as to how to go about that, but you appear to be avoiding coming to grips with any of them.  Why?  Have you actually tried them?  Which ones failed and why?  Or are you to lazy to make the effort?  

I am asking you to tell me in your own words. I read many church manuals and general conferences talks on that subject, you have no idea what I done for the church all my entire life, I done everything. I am aware of all that, but I would appreciate if you give me something more useful. 

I didn't finish reading Kevin Christensen, I mostly skim-read ,  I will read it when I get the time, I do hope it is useful. 

Edited August 18, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

It's not that hard to understand.

Can you point out anywhere on the Church website (any talk, article, lesson...anywhere) where LDS are taught that current leaders are fallible, that they might teach or publish something that isn't true, and what to do when the member realizes that such a mistake has been made?

Because as far as I can tell, the Church only teaches theoretical fallibility (i.e. "long-dead Prophets may have been mistaken about stuff, so look to the current less fallible leaders to correct them") and not actual, functional fallibility (i.e. "Current leaders are fallible, so keep an eye out for mistakes and here's what to do if the Prophet does say something that isn't true from the pulpit.")

(I'll also point out that the Church also seems to use the word "fallible" as a non sequitur when it comes to leaders, as if acknowledging "fallibility" means that they burn the toast sometimes or might make mistakes in other areas not related to teaching or leading the Church.  It's never used in a way that acknowledges they might teach something that isn't true from the pulpit.)

Quote

 

Bishops and stake presidents

The Church has great confidence in bishops and stake presidents, who have the sacred responsibility to judge in matters of worthiness and qualification to participate in the ordinances and sacraments of the Church, he said.

“We don’t claim infallibility for them, as we do not claim it for ourselves. But we know by experience the wisdom and discernment they can exercise. They take their responsibility seriously and rely heavily on divine guidance in fulfilling it,” he said.

If there are significant errors that may occur in the judgment process—and they will be rare—there is an opportunity for appeal to correct any such mistakes, he added.

 

https://www.lds.org/church/news/churchs-doctrine-on-chastity-will-never-change-says-elder-christofferson?lang=eng

Quote

We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators. Yet I humbly state that I have sat in the company of these men, and I believe their greatest desire is to know and do the will of our Heavenly Father. Those who sit in the highest councils of this church and have participated as inspiration has come and decisions have been reached know that this light and truth is beyond human intelligence and reasoning. These deep, divine impressions have come as the dews from heaven and settled upon them individually and collectively. So inspired, we can go forward in complete unity and accord.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/10/continuous-revelation?lang=eng

 

Quote

I express gratitude, my brothers and sisters, for the strength which comes through your faith and prayers. I am in need of your prayers at this time of my calling. To be an Apostle of the Lord, I am finding, is a process—a process of repentance and humility, to look inward as we’ve been instructed and ask for forgiveness and strength to be what I should be. Unfortunately, I am not a perfect man, and infallibility does not come with the call. Therefore, I must ask forforgiveness from Heavenly Father for those things which I have done which are less than perfect and ask forgiveness of anyone I might have offended knowingly or unknowingly because of my personality or style.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/05/the-unique-message-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

Quote

 

A Conviction of the Prophet

What does it mean to us to stand by Joseph? We do not have a doctrine of infallibility. Joseph himself was quick to admit his own shortcomings, but he was a good and stable boy and man. In describing his situation and personal errors, he said: “No one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature” (Joseph Smith—History 1:28). His openness on these matters was lifelong, and shortly before his death he said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.”5

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/02/stand-by-my-servant-joseph?lang=eng

Quote

 

I have a letter on my desk from a mother who told me a tragic story about the behavior of a man who had been called as a priesthood leader. “How,” she asked, “can I explain to my daughter that callings in this Church are inspired and at the same time explain the behavior of this man?”

While I share her hurt and embarrassment over what took place, I cannot help but wonder if she is not asking the wrong question. Surely her faith and that of her daughter cannot be so fragile that the misdeeds of one man would call the truthfulness of the whole gospel plan into question.

At issue is if our faith should rest in the infallibility of priesthood leaders or on the assurance that if we keep our covenants the Spirit of the Lord will always be our companion.

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/joseph-fielding-mcconkie_finding-answers/

 

That's a start

I am too tired to continue this exercise

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps he needs it spelled out.

Nephi beheld in vision that the church of the Lamb of God would be over all the face of the earth but that its numbers would be few by reason of the devil and his influence. It's a prophecy of the last days -- the days we're living in right now.

I think some want the Church to surrender its values, standards, unique doctrines, etc. so that it will be more appealing to the world and bring in droves and droves of people. I think if that were to happen, those who wish for such a thing would find themselves sorely disappointed. Meanwhile the Church would have been redefined out of existence.

Precisely my thoughts. I don't mind being a peculiar people. If we have to jettison our fundamental beliefs and values in order to conform with the world, we have lost our souls.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

Ah come on. I'm not going to chase down the quotes but Pres. Uchrdorf has flat out said leaders have made mistakes. In conference. It doesn't get more official. The News Room also defines doctrine as not being individual opinions. It does add the qualifier of well considered  or something but also flat out says sometimes leaders are just giving opinions. I think it is very unreasonable and very unfair to demand that they denounce one another's statements in the present. It often takes time to realize mistakes for one thing. And....you can't have it both ways. We have had discussions here about ho.w the essays have undone some members because they found out prophets make mistakes. You can certainly blame the Church for not coming out with it sooner but you cannot blame them for never coming out with it.

As to what to do when members see a mistake....that is a hard one. The first thing that needs to be done is to get rid of that horrific meme "prophets will never lead us astray." That one falls under not everything a leader says.....

How do you square this with Elder Maxwell's prophecy and counsel? 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng

Quote

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions.

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

Those days have arrived far sooner than I ever imagined they would.

If we are to doubt their inspiration and pick and choose the parts we think are inspired, are we not halting between two opinions?

Edited August 18, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Buckeye]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So if President Monson offers an official apology for MMM, everyone will love the Church and baptisms will skyrocket?

What do public approval and baptism rates have to do with it? Do the right thing, let the consequences follow.

[Buckeye]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How do you square this with Elder Maxwell's prophecy and counsel? 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng

Those days have arrived far sooner than I ever imagined they would.

If we are to doubt their inspiration and pick and choose the parts we think are inspired, are we not halting between two opinions?

This argument falls squarely within Mason's "all-or-nothing" critique. The fallacy is thinking that members have to agree on all church teachings to be unified. The reality is that members (worldwide, and in the Q12) have never been in agreement on all thing, and yet we've progressed pretty well. Most all church members agree on the "core doctrines" - if those doctrines are properly limited to the gospel of Jesus Christ (his condescension, resurrection, atonement, and so forth). Some members disagree in good faith on other significant church teachings (gay marriage, women's ordination, and so forth). And many members disagree on truly peripheral and cultural issues (pants for women, sacrament with right hand, diet coke, etc.)

The reality is that we've always been a unified church as to the core doctrines, we've never been close to unified on the peripheral issues, and we vacillate over time as to disagreement on some significant, but not core, doctrines. These ebbs and flows of disagreement have peaked repeatedly; a few examples include the church succession crisis after Joseph's death, the adoption and then rejection of active polygamy, the correct application of the WOW, the racial priesthood ban .... and more recently, women's equality in the church and gay marriage.

My point is that today is no different that prior days. And if I had to pick which age was more distressing as far as church unity, I'd certainly pick the post-manifesto era over today. For all the church's concern with the last days and persecution, the brethren (e.g., Elder Cook) have been very clear in teaching that the church is stronger today than ever. The "last days" have been with us for at least 2,000 years. They'll continue for thousands more. Our part is to focus on the vineyard today.

[Buckeye]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps he needs it spelled out.

Nephi beheld in vision that the church of the Lamb of God would be over all the face of the earth but that its numbers would be few by reason of the devil and his influence. It's a prophecy of the last days -- the days we're living in right now.

I think some want the Church to surrender its values, standards, unique doctrines, etc. so that it will be more appealing to the world and thus bring in droves and droves of people. I think if the Church were to do that, those who wish for such a thing would find themselves sorely disappointed. The expected influx wold not materialize. Meanwhile the Church would have been redefined out of existence.

We've been in the last days forever, and always will be. Saying we're in the last days is basically meaningless.

I don't know any who want the church to surrender its values, standards, or unique doctrines. I do know many (myself included) who want the church to continue repenting and progressing towards better values, standards, and doctrines (unique or otherwise). Elder Oaks recently gave an address on religious freedom where he explained how the church benefits society and how society benefits the church:

• "I reject the idea of a wall between church and state. The more appropriate metaphor to express that relation—reinforced by various decisions of the United States Supreme Court—is a curtain that defines boundaries but is not a barrier to the passage of light and love and mutual support from one side to another." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/transcript-elder-oaks-court-clergy-conference)

Oaks then gives one example where some religions (unfortunately not ours) passed "light" to society during the civil rights movement. Looking back, we can easily see how our own church benefited from being "in the world" that gave that same "light" to us and helped us choose a better path regarding our racial doctrines. IMO, the same thing is happening today with respect to LGBT families. The light is passing from the world to the church, even despite church policies that try to slow the process. Members are not supporting gay families because they want the church to surrender; they are supporting these families because they are good.

I'm not expecting an influx of members. I'm not sure where you ever got that idea. I am expecting that the church will mature, repent, and become more Christ-like. 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

13 hours ago, juliann said:

Ah come on. I'm not going to chase down the quotes but Pres. Uchrdorf has flat out said leaders have made mistakes. In conference. It doesn't get more official. The News Room also defines doctrine as not being individual opinions. It does add the qualifier of well considered  or something but also flat out says sometimes leaders are just giving opinions. I think it is very unreasonable and very unfair to demand that they denounce one another's statements in the present. It often takes time to realize mistakes for one thing. And....you can't have it both ways. We have had discussions here about ho.w the essays have undone some members because they found out prophets make mistakes. You can certainly blame the Church for not coming out with it sooner but you cannot blame them for never coming out with it.

As to what to do when members see a mistake....that is a hard one. The first thing that needs to be done is to get rid of that horrific meme "prophets will never lead us astray." That one falls under not everything a leader says.....

Amen!

IMO, the biggest problem with this teaching is that most members mistakenly think it is canon because it is found in the D/C. It takes a careful review to see that only OD-1 was adopted by common consent (though not unanimous). President Woodruff's remarks immediately following OD-1 are not canon, but merely commentary, not different than footnotes or chapter summaries. But that's easy to mistake.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Buckeye

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

because I personally define prophets accurately, and I know that Hugh Nibley always did -- see his The World and the Prophets, Collected Works III (1954/1987), online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/the-world-and-the-prophets/ .  That was a series broadcast Sunday evenings over KSL Radio in 1954 (available nationwide, and with the approval of the Brethren), so no one can complain that the Mormon people didn't have an opportunity to hear an accurate rendition of what prophets are all about.  Can't help it if there are so many silly billies out there who can't get it right.  That will always be a problem.

This is an interesting comment, and I'm curious what it is about your paradigm that forms the foundation for this kind of thinking?  Its good to be confident about some things, and Mormonism definitely has its influence on this idea that we can have a sure knowledge about things, or that Mormonism contains the fullness of knowledge about things.  It sounds like you're very confident in your understanding about prophets, that you "personally define prophets accurately".  

Why such confidence in your opinion?  This kind of confidence comes across to me as a hubris that is lacking in the humility necessary to be open to new ideas and new perspectives.  I would also argue that your understanding about prophets isn't in alignment with the perspective that Mr. Mason is sharing in his talk.  Could you expound upon why you think that your perspective is so accurate or Nibley's for that matter.  What makes you think you have it right?  

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Could you please give me an example of spouting flat earth type stuff? Or shouting disagreers out?

Huh? I thought that's what you said as the type of stuff you won't give up on?  I thought MfBukowski suggested we can't stick with flat earther stuff when it's obvious there's no flat earth, and I thought you responded by suggesting you can't give up the old ways.  Ah well...misunderstanding I guess. 

[Bernard Gui]

On August 18, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Buckeye said:

What do public approval and baptism rates have to do with it? Do the right thing, let the consequences follow.

The premise of all these laundry lists of things the Church should fix is that by doing so, members will stop leaving, sanitized Mormonism will be able to more fully enter the mainstream, and more people will want to join.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui