Serious Question: Has the Church Ever Admitted to Making a Mistake?

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

How do you place guilt/accountability on an institution for the actions of its members who act independent of the institution?

There is a connection between the members and the institution.  The institution is a sum of the parts of the members.  The level of accountability is subjective though, so there isn't an easy answer to your question.  These kinds of questions come up in court cases all the time as well.   

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is a connection in both examples.  It wouldn't be responsible to blame the originator of a movement for all the deeds of future followers, but to completely disassociate them is another extreme that doesn't make sense either. 

Obviously there is an association/connection, I am not denying that.   But I can't see any purpose in pointing out an innocuous link.  No, Ouagadougou is trying to smear Joseph for the deeds of Jeffs.  You are right, to blame Joseph Smith/LDS church for deeds of Warren Jeffs is irresponsible.

[Johnnie Cake]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

Somehow, this just seems rather disingenuous coming from you.  I don't sense an ounce of concern for any potential victims of previous mistakes, instead I smell vitriol on your breath.

You've misjudged me then...

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Obviously there is an association/connection, I am not denying that.   But I can't see any purpose in pointing out an innocuous link.  No, Ouagadougou is trying to smear Joseph for the deeds of Jeffs.  You are right, to blame Joseph Smith/LDS church for deeds of Warren Jeffs is irresponsible.

I would agree that Joseph Smith is not to blame directly, but I'm not sure I agree the link is innocuous.  The fact that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young promoted a behavior that was illegal at the time, and justified all kinds of morally problematic reasoning to support the practice of polygamy make this link to past history a little more relevant than you might.  I wouldn't raise it to the level of direct responsibility, but I wouldn't just dismiss it as an innocuous link either.  

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So you have to be an infallible divine being to have an opinion on whether the church made any mistakes in the past?  

No, but my opinions don't make Church doctrines or policy.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, emeliza said:

Am I the only one who is really curious on what these incidents were?

No idea since I made that story up.  

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is a connection in both examples.  It wouldn't be responsible to blame the originator of a movement for all the deeds of future followers, but to completely disassociate them is another extreme that doesn't make sense either. 

Let's not get into guilt by indirect association.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No, but my opinions don't make Church doctrines or policy.

Of course not.  No one suggested you have such power.  Thank goodness there is no requirement of authority to make comments and write opinions on a message board.  

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And the Warren Jeffs today are practicing whose polygamy?  They only exist because of the doctrine JS and BY taught.  I am also a direct descendant of polygamy -- and I am ashamed some of my ancestors ever engaged in this terrible practice.

Ridiculous.

That's like blaming Christ for the crusades or the inquisition.
And the practice didn't come from the teachings of JS and BY.  It came from the Lord by revelation.

And there is NOTHING inherently evil about polygamy.  God doesn't ever command evil, and yet the BOM says he can command polygamy.  The OT says he will give David the wives of Saul.

Edited February 13, 2017 by JLHPROF

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Let's not get into guilt by indirect association.

You sound very sensitive about these ideas as if you feel responsible to defend the integrity of the church.  This is a discussion board, not a defense board.  

[emeliza]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No idea since I made that story up.  

I figured, but still thought you might make something up.

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You sound very sensitive about these ideas as if you feel responsible to defend the integrity of the church.  This is a discussion board, not a defense board.  

I'm not particularly sensitive to disagreements. Ask anyone who reads my posts.   However I long ago accepted the Truth Claims of the Church, and not likely to change my mind on it. If you want to discuss how us mere mortals get things wrong. We can do that. 

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would agree that Joseph Smith is not to blame directly, but I'm not sure I agree the link is innocuous.  The fact that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young promoted a behavior that was illegal at the time, and justified all kinds of morally problematic reasoning to support the practice of polygamy make this link to past history a little more relevant than you might.  I wouldn't raise it to the level of direct responsibility, but I wouldn't just dismiss it as an innocuous link either.  

Nevermind

Edited February 13, 2017 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

JS didn't promote it, and polygamy wasn't illegal under BY.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

There is a connection between the members and the institution.  The institution is a sum of the parts of the members.  The level of accountability is subjective though, so there isn't an easy answer to your question.  These kinds of questions come up in court cases all the time as well.   

As far as liability goes, no, an institution is not simply "a sum of the parts of the members", making it accountable for the actions of such parts.  An institution is only liable for the actions of its members who are acting in accord with the policies/procedures of the institution.  There is nothing subjective about it.  If a member is acting independent of the institution's policies/procedures/laws, the institution is not liable.

Edited February 13, 2017 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

JS didn't promote it, and polygamy wasn't illegal under BY.

I wonder what Joseph's 33+ wives would call his proposals for plural marriage, I would call it promoting.

As for Brigham, lets see, how many laws against Polygamy did he violate?  Just for starters there's the Illinois state laws first, then common law in the US it was illegal, making it illegal in US territories as well.  After unsuccessfully getting Mormons to follow these laws, the Government started passing more and more progressively stringent laws to try and get Mormons to comply.  In Brigham's lifetime there was the Morrill Act in 1862, then the Poland act in 1874, not to mention the Edmunds and Edmunds tucker acts, but those were after Brigham passed away.  

 

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

As far as liability goes, no, an institution is not simply "a sum of the parts of the members", making it accountable for the actions of such parts.  An institution is only liable for the actions of its members who are acting in accord with the policies/procedures of the institution.  There is nothing subjective about it.  If a member is acting independent of the institution's policies/procedures/laws, the institution is not liable.

Yet, legal cases have held corporations liable for the actions of members those corporations many times in the past.  Its difficult to determine liability, and thats why I said that this is subjective in that different outcomes from these cases have happened many times.  How do you determine if a stake president or general authority is acting independent of the LDS church?  Its all subjective and will vary based on the evidence presented in each case.  

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yet, legal cases have held corporations liable for the actions of members those corporations many times in the past.

CFR for a corporation being held liable for the actions of a member who was acting contrary to the policies/procedures/laws of said corporation.

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

CFR for a corporation being held liable for the actions of a member who was acting contrary to the policies/procedures/laws of said corporation.

That would be up to the court to determine if their actions were clearly independent and whether the corporation had clearly defined rules and training that would cause them to not be liable for the actions of the employee. Where there is ambiguity, this is where corporations have been held liable in the past.    

Plenty of ambiguity in the early church about laws/procedures on topics like polygamy where public statements and private statements are in direct contradiction with each other.  

I don't have a legal background, but just a quick google search gives a lot of hits on companies being held liable for the actions of employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wonder what Joseph's 33+ wives would call his proposals for plural marriage, I would call it promoting.

As for Brigham, lets see, how many laws against Polygamy did he violate?  Just for starters there's the Illinois state laws first, then common law in the US it was illegal, making it illegal in US territories as well.  After unsuccessfully getting Mormons to follow these laws, the Government started passing more and more progressively stringent laws to try and get Mormons to comply.  In Brigham's lifetime there was the Morrill Act in 1862, then the Poland act in 1874, not to mention the Edmunds and Edmunds tucker acts, but those were after Brigham passed away.

 

D&C 98:4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Pres. Rudger Clawson - I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God; but whenever they do I shall invariably choose to obey the latter.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That would be up to the court to determine if their actions were clearly independent and whether the corporation had clearly defined rules and training that would cause them to not be liable for the actions of the employee. Where there is ambiguity, this is where corporations have been held liable in the past.    

Plenty of ambiguity in the early church about laws/procedures on topics like polygamy where public statements and private statements are in direct contradiction with each other.  

I don't have a legal background, but just a quick google search gives a lot of hits on companies being held liable for the actions of employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

We are talking about MMM. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

CFR for a corporation being held liable for the actions of a member who was acting contrary to the policies/procedures/laws of said corporation.

Wow. Seriously? Read a newspaper.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Somehow, this just seems rather disingenuous coming from you.  I don't sense an ounce of concern for any potential victims of previous mistakes, instead I smell vitriol on your breath.

Rude! Bad form making unfounded accusations, Pogi.

You "sense" it, do you? Who can argue with that kind of evidence.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow. Seriously? Read a newspaper.

 

Could you provide an example?  I read the news every day but i can't think of any example like that off of the top of my head.  It would be really interesting to read about though.

I can think of lots of examples of it happening in the court of public opinion, but none where the company was held legally liable for the behavior of an employee that was counter to company policy/procedures/law.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church didn't commit the MMM.

Well, the Church didn't put on a yellow vest and go pick up garbage last year, but it was sure willing to take the credit for it when I did it.