Perfect Fallibility

[Thinking]

In the eleven years that I have been a member of this board there have many topics about alleged mistakes made by LDS leaders. Some common defenses to the accusations are...

• the accusation is false.
• the information is misunderstood.
• the information might be correct, but remember, he's only a man. LDS leaders are not infallible.

It is the third point that I would like to discuss.

Even though faithful LDS admit that their leaders are not perfect, many of them really want their leaders to be perfect. There is no fixed number of mistakes that a leader can make, but any mistake will naturally cause some to doubt the claimed divine authority of that leader. The recent Elder Holland controversy is a perfect (pun intended) example. Elder Holland made a mistake and corrected it after he discovered the mistake. Many faithful LDS are giving him a pass because...

• it wasn't his fault. He was only repeating what was told to him.
• a story doesn't have to be 100% accurate. Disney versions are just fine.
• look at how he owned up to his mistake. I have more respect for him now.

It's like no mistake was ever really made. Hence perfect fallibility.

[Calm]

What response would you suggest would be a more realistic on given the greater context, not only of the story, but of his life,

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What response would you suggest would be a more realistic on given the greater context, not only of the story, but of his life,

You ask for a greater context, not only of the story, BUT OF HIS LIFE. Wow! Get a grip. This was only a story.

Whenever I have spun a yarn and someone has caught me in yarn-spinner mode with some actual facts surrounding my story, that cast doubt, Like, " a lake trout could not possibly weigh 15 kilos" Or, "It is not possible to drive from Stockholm to Göteborg in two hours", then I quickly adjust my story and remember never to repeat that same tale for that audience again.

I don't expect anyone to come with a caveat that "since you lied about the size of the trout you caught, therefore, you must have lied about you actually being my father!"

Holland repeated a story he had been told. He added details like the breed and size of the dogs, that makes the story more colourful. He added details of one brother (missionary) stumbling upon another brother (prodigal), while in fact the two brothers could not have met under such circumstances. Holland stretched the truth in order to tell a story. That doesn't call for an inspection of his life. 

[changed]

Personal responsibility and accountability are born from imperfect leaders.  Church membership is a mixture of personal revelation, personal thoughts, personal beliefs - mixed with the mostly good advice of leaders.    If our leaders were perfect there would be no reason to think and act for ourselves.  

Those who demand perfect leaders seem to be those who want to give up their free will - who want to be told every little thing to do and think, rather than taking responsibility for themselves.  

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You ask for a greater context, not only of the story, BUT OF HIS LIFE. Wow! Get a grip. This was only a story.

Whenever I have spun a yarn and someone has caught me in yarn-spinner mode with some actual facts surrounding my story, that cast doubt, Like, " a lake trout could not possibly weigh 15 kilos" Or, "It is not possible to drive from Stockholm to Göteborg in two hours", then I quickly adjust my story and remember never to repeat that same tale for that audience again.

I don't expect anyone to come with a caveat that "since you lied about the size of the trout you caught, therefore, you must have lied about you actually being my father!"

Holland repeated a story he had been told. He added details like the breed and size of the dogs, that makes the story more colourful. He added details of one brother (missionary) stumbling upon another brother (prodigal), while in fact the two brothers could not have met under such circumstances. Holland stretched the truth in order to tell a story. That doesn't call for an inspection of his life. 

You misunderstand.

Thinking has taken three responses and equated them to treating leaders as being viewed having infallibility no matter what, which is talking about the entire context of their lives...as in if they are treated in this way at this time, that means you view his life in a certain context.  He is making an introspection of posters' global view of leadership based on their reactions here in the thread, reactions he has apparently rejected as unrealistic.

I am curious as to what reactions of the same type, views from believers that respect Holland for service etc., who see him as a whole human being and not a one dimensional cartoon character...what would be better responses in Thinking's view for such believers....what would Thinking see as appropriate responses in this particular context from those who do see leaders as fallible human beings, but also see many good qualities in him...say what responses would you give to a loved family member who made the mistake Thinking sees Holland made, whatever that was.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

In the eleven years that I have been a member of this board there have many topics about alleged mistakes made by LDS leaders. Some common defenses to the accusations are...

• the accusation is false.
• the information is misunderstood.
• the information might be correct, but remember, he's only a man. LDS leaders are not infallible.

It is the third point that I would like to discuss.

Even though faithful LDS admit that their leaders are not perfect, many of them really want their leaders to be perfect. There is no fixed number of mistakes that a leader can make, but any mistake will naturally cause some to doubt the claimed divine authority of that leader. The recent Elder Holland controversy is a perfect (pun intended) example. Elder Holland made a mistake and corrected it after he discovered the mistake. Many faithful LDS are giving him a pass because...

• it wasn't his fault. He was only repeating what was told to him.
• a story doesn't have to be 100% accurate. Disney versions are just fine.
• look at how he owned up to his mistake. I have more respect for him now.

It's like no mistake was ever really made. Hence perfect fallibility.

Are you upset that many LDS do not consider this a moral failure on the part of Elder Holland? That seems.......weird.

[pogi]

Have you ever heard of the term "innocent mistake"?

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

In the eleven years that I have been a member of this board there have many topics about alleged mistakes made by LDS leaders. Some common defenses to the accusations are...

• the accusation is false.
• the information is misunderstood.
• the information might be correct, but remember, he's only a man. LDS leaders are not infallible.

It is the third point that I would like to discuss.

Even though faithful LDS admit that their leaders are not perfect, many of them really want their leaders to be perfect.

Hence the plain counsel we have received again and again regarding such unrealistic (and non-doctrinal/scriptural) expectations.

Moreover, I think some critics and dissidents want to perpetuate this false notion (that LDS leaders are "perfect").  They plainly are not, after all, so creating an expectation of perfection makes it all the more easy to attack the LDS Church and its leaders when that expectation is inevitably not met.

Quote

There is no fixed number of mistakes that a leader can make, but any mistake will naturally cause some to doubt the claimed divine authority of that leader.

Which explains why some critics and dissidents fixate on every mistake / error / sin / misstep / misunderstanding / weakness / character flaw / etc. of LDS leaders.  It creates a wonderful formula for such folks:

• 1) Create/perpetuate false notions of "infallibility" (in plain contravention of substantial scriptural and prophetic counsel against such notions).
• 2) Endlessly fixate / dwell on / obsess over / exaggerate / harp on every mistake / error / sin / misstep / misunderstanding / weakness / character flaw / etc. of LDS leaders.
• 3) Juxtapose false notions of "infallibility" against fixated-on errors / mistakes / sins, etc. of leaders of the LDS Church (even to the point of continuing to find fault where that leader has rectified the error (Elder Holland being a prime example).  
• 4) Revel in sowing seeds of discord, faithlessness, and judgmentalism amongst the Saints.
• 5) Rinse, lather, repeat.  Day after day.  Year after year.  Decade after decade.

What a repulsive endeavor.  

Quote

The recent Elder Holland controversy is a perfect (pun intended) example. Elder Holland made a mistake and corrected it after he discovered the mistake. Many faithful LDS are giving him a pass because...

• it wasn't his fault. He was only repeating what was told to him.
• a story doesn't have to be 100% accurate. Disney versions are just fine.
• look at how he owned up to his mistake. I have more respect for him now.

It's like no mistake was ever really made. Hence perfect fallibility.

As to your point about Elder Holland . . . I don't understand your point.  

He made a mistake and corrected it, and yet you are still faulting him?  

What is it you expect him to do?  

And what is it you expect the Latter-day Saints to do about this?  Hold a grudge?  Lord it over him?  Glory in his error?  Point it out constantly and forevermore?  Leave the Church?

I also don't understand what you mean by "perfect fallibility."  In the LDS paradigm, the Lord allows us to repent of our mistakes / errors / sins.  Do you . . . resent that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 4, 2017 by smac97

[rchorse]

Of course members of the church want its leaders to be perfect. But most recognize that they are not. I also want my wife to be perfect, but sadly she's not. I want to be a perfect father and husband, but sadly, I am far from being either. Most of the time, I give my wife a pass because I love her. She also gives me a pass most of the time, as well, for which I am grateful.

Is there a reason I should feel bad about giving church leaders a pass on what I perceive as a trivial issue because I love the church and believe that its leaders are more often inspired than not? Or to the contrary, is there a quota of mistakes from church leaders that, once exceeded, requires me to disbelieve? Then to be logically consistent, there must be a quota of mistakes from a spouse that, when exceeded, universally requires divorce. Or a quota of mistakes as a parent that mandates loss of parental rights. Or only a certain number of mistakes I am to allow myself before I must commit seppuku.

Or maybe it's really that faith is a choice, and it's up to each person to decide for themselves where the line is and when it is crossed in relationships with church, family, self, etc.? Why is it ok to judge someone for choosing to forgive and maintain belief, but not alright to judge someone for deciding the line has been crossed and they no longer believe? I don't think either form of judgment should be encouraged.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

In the eleven years that I have been a member of this board there have many topics about alleged mistakes made by LDS leaders. Some common defenses to the accusations are...

• the accusation is false.
• the information is misunderstood.
• the information might be correct, but remember, he's only a man. LDS leaders are not infallible.

It is the third point that I would like to discuss.

Even though faithful LDS admit that their leaders are not perfect, many of them really want their leaders to be perfect. There is no fixed number of mistakes that a leader can make, but any mistake will naturally cause some to doubt the claimed divine authority of that leader. The recent Elder Holland controversy is a perfect (pun intended) example. Elder Holland made a mistake and corrected it after he discovered the mistake. Many faithful LDS are giving him a pass because...

• it wasn't his fault. He was only repeating what was told to him.
• a story doesn't have to be 100% accurate. Disney versions are just fine.
• look at how he owned up to his mistake. I have more respect for him now.

It's like no mistake was ever really made. Hence perfect fallibility.

I think there are situations where each of those reasons apply.

This past Sunday in Gospel Doctrine our teacher bore an impassioned testimony about how our leaders are only human and they make mistakes BUT when acting in their official capacity they are "perfect". Gag. I don't believe that for a moment but it's an important part of this teacher's testimony which he shared with everyone. He went on to explain that because each and every prophet and apostle has had a personal visitation from Jesus that we can have perfect confidence in everything they say because the Lord would not allow them to lead us astray.

 Hmmm.

I'm perfectly fine accepting that our leaders are fallible but I'm not fine setting limitations on their fallibility, nor am I comfortable claiming the fallibility is some kind of a virtue. It's just realistic to be prepared for errors but it's testimonies and teachings from people like this teacher that make it difficult to take them seriously because while they say mistakes can be made they will find every possible reason to ignore mistakes, protect those who make them, and somehow be smug and condescending about the virtue of the possible error that was made or rail against those who draw attention to the error.

[USU78]

An example of error made right: Church leaders went along with the Church architect's plans for the pillar by night/cloud by day temple design in the early 70s. Then when the Ogden Temple needed retrofitting, they rectified a horrible design error by completely changing the Temple's facade and shape.

And the resulting structure is spectacular.

Just so the Church leaders whose errors are made manifest specifically through their admission of those errors are made more sublime in their persons by the process of repentance.

An excellent system.

Edited August 4, 2017 by USU78

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And what is it you expect the Latter-day Saints to do about this?

I think he was hoping for something like this:

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Whenever I have spun a yarn and someone has caught me in yarn-spinner mode with some actual facts surrounding my story, that cast doubt, Like, " a lake trout could not possibly weigh 15 kilos" Or, "It is not possible to drive from Stockholm to Göteborg in two hours", then I quickly adjust my story and remember never to repeat that same tale for that audience again.

"For that audience".....   holycow

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

In the eleven years that I have been a member of this board there have many topics about alleged mistakes made by LDS leaders. Some common defenses to the accusations are...

• the accusation is false.
• the information is misunderstood.
• the information might be correct, but remember, he's only a man. LDS leaders are not infallible.

It is the third point that I would like to discuss.

Even though faithful LDS admit that their leaders are not perfect, many of them really want their leaders to be perfect. There is no fixed number of mistakes that a leader can make, but any mistake will naturally cause some to doubt the claimed divine authority of that leader. The recent Elder Holland controversy is a perfect (pun intended) example. Elder Holland made a mistake and corrected it after he discovered the mistake. Many faithful LDS are giving him a pass because...

• it wasn't his fault. He was only repeating what was told to him.
• a story doesn't have to be 100% accurate. Disney versions are just fine.
• look at how he owned up to his mistake. I have more respect for him now.

It's like no mistake was ever really made. Hence perfect fallibility.

I think you bring up some valid points to consider.  But I would like to address your questions in a different way.  The issue is much more broad than that.  Every religion wants a faith full of miracles, angles, visitations from heavenly messengers, power of faith  to heal their loved ones, and yes, finding lost keys.  It is a formula that has kept people in religion for centuries.  

Certainly there will always be a core of believers in any religion that feel they have enough proof in their lives to continue in their faith no matter what the distractors uncover or disprove.  But more and more, there are those that do not have that proof of faith in their lives.  It has become just as easy to explain a miracle as it is to embrace it.  Every miracle that is explained by science  or the actual facts of what happened weakens the story of faith and the divine.  Every story that proves to not live up to it's faith promoting purpose weakens the claim of all religion.  It is what is causing people to walk away from organized religion.  They may see the divinity in God or Christ.  What they are seeing less of is the divinity in the stories of faith and those that lead the churches. Miracles are become less miraculous.  Church leaders of all churches are becoming just men trying to do the best they can to fulfill their calling.

Is Mormonism somehow exempt from all of this questioning of the divine?  

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you bring up some valid points to consider.  But I would like to address your questions in a different way.  The issue is much more broad than that.  Every religion wants a faith full of miracles, angles, visitations from heavenly messengers, power of faith  to heal their loved ones, and yes, finding lost keys.  It is a formula that has kept people in religion for centuries.  

Certainly there will always be a core of believers in any religion that feel they have enough proof in their lives to continue in their faith no matter what the distractors uncover or disprove.  But more and more, there are those that do not have that proof of faith in their lives.  It has become just as easy to explain a miracle as it is to embrace it.  Every miracle that is explained by science  or the actual facts of what happened weakens the story of faith and the divine.  Every story that proves to not live up to it's faith promoting purpose weakens the claim of all religion.  It is what is causing people to walk away from organized religion.  They may see the divinity in God or Christ.  What they are seeing less of is the divinity in the stories of faith and those that lead the churches. Miracles are become less miraculous.  Church leaders of all churches are becoming just men trying to do the best they can to fulfill their calling.

Is Mormonism somehow exempt from all of this questioning of the divine?  

Fundamentalism rampant on a field of curmudgeonliness.

Edited August 4, 2017 by USU78

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

An example of error made right: Church leaders went along with the Church architect's plans for the pillar by night/cloud by day temple design in the early 70s. Then when the Ogden Temple needed retrofitting, they rectified a horrible design error by completely changing the Temple's facade and shape.

And the resulting structure is spectacular.

Just so the Church leaders whose errors are made manifest specifically through their admission of those errors are made more sublime in their persons by the process of repentance.

An excellent system.

Will the Provo Temple ever be retrofitted?

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

An example of error made right: Church leaders went along with the Church architect's plans for the pillar by night/cloud by day temple design in the early 70s. Then when the Ogden Temple needed retrofitting, they rectified a horrible design error by completely changing the Temple's facade and shape.

And the resulting structure is spectacular.

Just so the Church leaders whose errors are made manifest specifically through their admission of those errors are made more sublime in their persons by the process of repentance.

An excellent system.

Let me see if I understand you. You are saying the lower part of the temple on the left is supposed to represent a cloud? And the steeple a pillar of fire?

I never got that from the design ie the Provo temple. Are you saying that is the "error?" I do like the new design on the right much better, but I don't really see an error. If they had made the facade of the original wave up and down at the top, and the points on the spire more uneven I may have gotten a feeling they were trying to represent something. If done well, it's possible I would have even liked it. I didn't know that others felt so strongly about the Provo/Ogden design to call it an error though.

[Thinking]

There's a scene in the movie Space Jam where Michael Jordan strikes out. When he gets back to the dugout one teammate says, "That was a strikeout Mike? But that was a good looking strikeout." Another says, "I mean, you look good when you strike out, man. When I strike out, it looks nasty, man."

Perfect Fallibility

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Will the Provo Temple ever be retrofitted?

We can only hope

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Let me see if I understand you. You are saying the lower part of the temple on the left is supposed to represent a cloud? And the steeple a pillar of fire?

I never got that from the design ie the Provo temple. Are you saying that is the "error?" I do like the new design on the right much better, but I don't really see an error. If they had made the facade of the original wave up and down at the top, and the points on the spire more uneven I may have gotten a feeling they were trying to represent something. If done well, it's possible I would have even liked it. I didn't know that others felt so strongly about the Provo/Ogden design to call it an error though.

We northern county Mormons of a certain age have strong opinions on the Logan Temple gutting and the Ogden Temple retrofit.

ETA: the architect himself made the pillar/cloud intention expressly.

Edited August 4, 2017 by USU78

[Calm]

Thinking, That video and explanation would cover the original error, but seems to ignore the retraction which would not be a "strikeout" to my mind.

So it doesn't really apply.

Can you try again to explain what this issue is?

Edited August 4, 2017 by Calm

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

many of them really want their leaders to be perfect

OK. So of these, which ones leave because the leaders are not perfect, and which ones stay despite their imperfections? Which ones are excessively demanding of perfection, and which ones are excessively rationalizing imperfection?

"Perfect fallibility" seems to be the reason for both rejecting and sustaining them. Why just pick on the faithful?

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

In the eleven years that I have been a member of this board there have many topics about alleged mistakes made by LDS leaders. Some common defenses to the accusations are...

• the accusation is false.
• the information is misunderstood.
• the information might be correct, but remember, he's only a man. LDS leaders are not infallible.

It is the third point that I would like to discuss.

Even though faithful LDS admit that their leaders are not perfect, many of them really want their leaders to be perfect. There is no fixed number of mistakes that a leader can make, but any mistake will naturally cause some to doubt the claimed divine authority of that leader. The recent Elder Holland controversy is a perfect (pun intended) example. Elder Holland made a mistake and corrected it after he discovered the mistake. Many faithful LDS are giving him a pass because...

• it wasn't his fault. He was only repeating what was told to him.
• a story doesn't have to be 100% accurate. Disney versions are just fine.
• look at how he owned up to his mistake. I have more respect for him now.

It's like no mistake was ever really made. Hence perfect fallibility.

It gives me hope that God is still is willing to talk to us far from perfect fallible mortals.

[Homestar Runner]

As the old joke goes, the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but nobody believes it.  And the prophet is not infallible when giving a general conference talk, but nobody believes it.

 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Homestar Runner

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

In the eleven years that I have been a member of this board there have many topics about alleged mistakes made by LDS leaders. Some common defenses to the accusations are...

• the accusation is false.

often true

Quote

• the information is misunderstood.

sometimes true

Quote

• the information might be correct, but remember, he's only a man. LDS leaders are not infallible.

It is the third point that I would like to discuss.

Even though faithful LDS admit that their leaders are not perfect, many of them really want their leaders to be perfect. There is no fixed number of mistakes that a leader can make, but any mistake will naturally cause some to doubt the claimed divine authority of that leader. The recent Elder Holland controversy is a perfect (pun intended) example. Elder Holland made a mistake and corrected it after he discovered the mistake. Many faithful LDS are giving him a pass because...

• it wasn't his fault. He was only repeating what was told to him.
• a story doesn't have to be 100% accurate. Disney versions are just fine.
• look at how he owned up to his mistake. I have more respect for him now.

It's like no mistake was ever really made. Hence perfect fallibility.

I see another option starting with Joseph Smith. Like us Joseph was learning. Sometimes God spoke to Him - often directly in answer to prayer. I accept these revelations as truth, but they too are subject to interpretation. I believe sometimes just a change in punctuation can lead one to different conclusions. When Joseph spoke in meetings and such, he was subject to error, and sometimes did err. Sometimes his opinion was wrong. So unless other leaders have said "thus, saith the lord" I take what they say as subject to scrutiny and prayer of confirmation. It is usually right but can be a mix of inspiration and opinion. I believe I have just as much right to interpret scripture as they do.

With regard to Elder Holland, what would have been best is if Elder Holland had perhaps tried more diligently to confirm the story in the first place.being that he apparently received the story second hand - making it hearsay. I believe there are many other instances of false or errant hearsay in Church history(esp regarding Joseph Smith), so when extraordinary stories are heard, I believe it incumbent on the hearer to try to verify its particulars if it is second hand hearsay. Hopefully, Church leaders will be careful about doing this always. Failure to do this is an imperfection which I do not believe needs to be accepted. If a story cannot be verified from the original subjects, then multiple other witnesses and prayer are the next option. I do not seek to make excuses for Elder Holland, but I am glad that he corrected the mistake. Hopefully, he learned from this oversight.