I am confused. Can someone clarify

[rockpond]

16 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

LDS manual reviewed by the First Presidency teaches, "As you pray for inspiration, you should also confirm your feelings. For example, compare your decisions with the scriptures and the teachings of the living prophets."  In General Conference Elder Andersen taught "True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find". The Gospel Topics website states, "Each Gospel Topic includes a brief overview sharing what Latter-day Saints believe about the topic". Right after a "No Death before Fall" talk Gordon B Hinckley confirmed, " The speakers have been inspired, every one of them". I also quoted a Testimony on Mormon.org on "No Death", it probably means many Mormons in the wards have a testimony about it. 

I always confirm my revelations (thoughts or ideas that come to my mind) in the scriptures, general conference, gospel topics, and church manuals, that is the only way it works for me. However, Robert told me "Most people just don't take that approach -- except for evangelical fundamentalist christians, who do not believe in the seeking the Holy Spirit, but who instead believe that they can suss everything out through application of ordinary understanding of mere words spoken or in print."  

 Many here are telling me that some church teachings like The great flood, no death, Book of Mormon historical, traditional marriage could be wrong. If so how am I suppose to know what is inspired and what is not inspired? If many General Conference teachings are wrong then do we even have Conference? Why do we read church manuals and the scriptures? Why do we read the Gospel Topics?

I believe General Conference is inspired by God, so can someone please help me understand how is General Conference a guide if we start to assume that some teachings could be wrong? If some teachings are wrong I don't see how it can be reliable 

 

I view our classes (SS, Priesthood, RS, primary, seminary, institute, etc) and the associated manuals as great opportunities to study and discuss doctrines, scripture, the gospel, and the restoration.  Likewise listening to or watching general conference and then studying those addresses gives me the opportunity to ponder specific teachings and pray about their application in my life.

The Spirit is our guide and shows us truth.  The Spirit seems to prompt and direct in sometimes contradicting ways.  Given that, I have decided to cease the search for some kind of absolute truth with respect to topics outside of our core doctrine.

[jkwilliams]

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's overstated. If people believed in infallibility many more people would have food storage and do their home teaching each month.

Maybe, but I know what the reaction would be if someone said, "I think the prophet is wrong about something."

[clarkgoble]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

All the evidence I've seen throughout my life from church leaders convinces me that many of the leaders value allegiance over independence of thought.

I agree they want allegiance. Thus the joke that no one cares what you think so long as you aren't teaching people in some strong way and you're doing your calling. That's clearly allegiance with an emphasis on praxis not theory.

Quote

I haven't seen any clear articulations from the church or from its prophets/apostles that distinguish between this profound difference that you say exists.  If you can point me to that evidence I will reconsider.  

Lead astray = lead in a significant way into beliefs that take one away from Christ

Infallibility = correct in all details

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

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe, but I know what the reaction would be if someone said, "I think the prophet is wrong about something."

What do you think the reaction would be?  I've taught that in class multiple times without trouble. My favorite example was Brigham Young unwisely initially choosing sandstone for the SLC temple. I then follow that up with Jonah and get at the distinction between leading astray and infallibility via a reading of Ether 12. I've never once had even a modicum of complaining. I do get at the fact the burden of proof is on those who disagree with the prophet. I emphasize Pres. Benson's teachings about the prophet being able to speak on anything but having to have confirmation from the spirit to 'trump' what they say. But there's no shortage of examples of prophetic fallibility. I've never even had anyone raise an objection to that.

Edited August 31, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. But that only works if you're claiming fallibility of a past prophet and the current prophet agrees with you. If you claim fallibility of a current prophet you're an apostate. IOW- leaders and members alike tend to act like the current prophet is infallible.

I claim fallibility along with numerous GAs and have never remotely been called an apostate even when I've taught it in Sunday School.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

What do you think the reaction would be?  I've taught that in class multiple times without trouble. My favorite example was Brigham Young unwisely initially choosing sandstone for the SLC temple. I then follow that up with Jonah and get at the distinction between leading astray and infallibility via a reading of Ether 12. I've never once had even a modicum of complaining. I do get at the fact the burden of proof is on those who disagree with the prophet. I emphasize Pres. Benson's teachings about the prophet being able to speak on anything but having to have confirmation from the spirit to 'trump' what they say. But there's no shortage of examples of prophetic fallibility. I've never even had anyone raise an objection to that.

Oh, dead prophets are fair game. It's the living one who is functionally infallible, in my experience.  For example, how would it go over if someone got up in sacrament meeting and said the policy change on same-sex families is wrong?

Edited August 31, 2017 by jkwilliams

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, what are your thoughts about infallibility?  Do you think the Brethren are infallible?

No, but it would be hard for me to believe that the same mistakes are repeated many times in General Conference and Church books. 

Imagine in your job. What happens when you make the same mistake over and over again? You could get fired.   

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 If conference is 95% accurate that would be more accurate than scientific papers (which rarely get to 20% replication). 

More or less I suspect your question isn't really about conference or the Brethren but how things that aren't infallible can be reliable. Yet I imagine the majority of things you depend upon day to day as reliable aren't nearly so reliable.

If we see the same mistakes in Conference for decades, how can we know that 95% of Conference is accurate? 

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 accurate than scientific papers (which rarely get to 20% replication). 

Yes, I think in psychology studies.  It is my understanding that non-republicable papers are thrown out.   

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I doubt anyone here (well, maybe us apostates) is telling you that church teachings could be wrong. The issue is whether we have a proper understanding of those teachings. Some people are hyperliteral and say, If the scriptures say there was no death before the Fall, then there was no death, and therefore evolution is false. Others realize that the evidence is overwhelming that all living things, including humans, have evolved from earlier life forms, so they decide that perhaps the hyperliteral understanding of the scriptures is wrong. I know plenty of people who believe in the scriptures and the doctrines of the church and believe in the things you say are opposed to church doctrine.

I understand   

Edited August 31, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree they want allegiance. Thus the joke that no one cares what you think so long as you aren't teaching people in some strong way and you're doing your calling. That's clearly allegiance with an emphasis on praxis not theory.

Lead astray = lead in a significant way into beliefs that take one away from Christ

Infallibility = correct in all details

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

Reading through that talk was interesting, I don't know that I've read it before, I was a teenager when it first came out.  A couple thoughts on it.  Lots of confusing and contradictory concepts in the overall talk from how I understand it.  

Quote

If we do not sustain the living prophet, whoever he may be, we die spiritually. Ironically, some have died spiritually by exclusively following prophets who have long been dead. Others equivocate in their support of living prophets, trying to lift themselves up by putting down the living prophets, however subtly.

Dying spiritually, sounds pretty bad if we don't sustain the prophet.  

Quote

This continuous revelation will not and cannot be forced by outside pressure from people and events. It is not the so-called “revelation of social progress.” It does not originate with the prophets; it comes from God. The Church is governed by the prophet under the guidance and direction of God.

Interesting reading of history.  He talked about the priesthood ban change "as one of the greatest disclosures", yet he fails to see how social pressures influenced this event.  Seems like he wants to craft a narrative that the church leaders are immune and independent of their surrounding environments.  I've heard this before, its honestly quite ignorant of history and of how societies and people work.  

Quote

We have been promised that the President of the Church will receive guidance for all of us as the revelator for the Church. Our safety lies in paying heed to that which he says and following his counsel.
The doctrine of this church was stated by Elder Stephen L Richards: “They [the Presidency] are the supreme court here on earth in the interpretation of God’s law.

Supreme court analogy is a pretty strong legalistic metaphor to use, doesn't sound like we're free to interpret the counsel of leaders using this kind of language.  

Quote

“In formulating their interpretations and decisions they always confer with the Council of the Twelve Apostles who by revelation are appointed to assist and act with them in the government of the Church. When, therefore, a judgment is reached and proclaimed by these officers it becomes binding upon all members of the Church, individual views to the contrary notwithstanding. God’s Kingdom is a kingdom of law and order.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1938, pp. 115–16.)

So I'm bound by the proclamations of church leaders regardless of how I interpret their validity.  Bound even by their fallible teachings.  More strong language here.  

Quote

How can we be so sure that, as promised, the prophets, seers, and revelators will never lead this people astray? (See Joseph Fielding Smith, Ensign, July 1972, p. 88.) One answer is contained in the grand principle found in the 107th section of the Doctrine and Covenants: “And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same.” (D&C 107:27.) This requirement of unanimity provides a check on bias and personal idiosyncrasies. It ensures that God rules through the Spirit, not man through majority or compromise. It ensures that the best wisdom and experience is focused on an issue before the deep, unassailable impressions of revealed direction are received. It guards against the foibles of man.

And here is the key, this is the same that Elder Anderson has recently articulated.  Its the unanimity in the quorums that makes their statements aligned with deity.  His confidence is in the unanimous actions of the church leaders.  He sounds less confident in individual ideas, but in the unanimous he is completely confident things are divinely inspired.  So infallibility is checked by unanimity.  

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.

Lastly, the caveat statement after all the prior strong language to the contrary.  I think this talk actually illustrates my earlier points quite well. There is a desire to have things both ways. 

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, dead prophets are fair game. It's the living one who is functionally infallible, in my experience.  For example, how would it go over if someone got up in sacrament meeting and said the policy change on same-sex families is wrong?

Picking a major doctrine most people agree with probably isn't a good example. We have to distinguish between questions of fallibility and questions of agreement. I get annoyed at theological liberals who do dispute many points the brethren teach. But is the issue fallibility or disagreement?

If you want to make your point you have to pick something more ambiguous. How about this one: Hinkley saying to Time magazine he didn't know if becoming like God was doctrine. Tons of people thought he was wrong for doing that and said so. I don't recall much controversy for them saying that even by people like myself who thought it was very overstated. Or how about this one - Elder Nelson or Elder McConkie saying evolution was wrong. I had no trouble at the time saying they were wrong.

I mean let's be honest. Theological liberals have been rejecting statements by the brethren non-stop for years. Just go visit BCC for tons of regular examples. I think they're typically wrong, but it's not like they face much by way of consequence.

Fundamentally many people just don't have much they disagree with the prophet on. That seems different from the question of fallibility. I mean I'm obviously a big proponent of fallibility but if you were to ask me what I'd disagree with stated by the President of the church during my adult lifetime stated in a formal setting I can't think of anything. I can think of a few errors in conference talks by Apostles but don't see them as a big deal.

Edited August 31, 2017 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Picking a major doctrine most people agree with probably isn't a good example. 

If you want to make your point you have to pick something more ambiguous. How about this one: Hinkley saying to Time magazine he didn't know if becoming like God was doctrine. Tons of people thought he was wrong for doing that and said so. I don't recall much controversy for them saying that even by people like myself who thought it was very overstated. Or how about this one - Elder Nelson or Elder McConkie saying evolution was wrong. I had no trouble at the time saying they were wrong.

I mean let's be honest. Theological liberals have been rejecting statements by the brethren non-stop for years. Just go visit BCC for tons of regular examples. I think they're typically wrong, but it's not like they face much by way of consequence.

The problem is that many people just don't have much they disagree with the prophet on. That seems different from the question of fallibility. 

I think it's a good example. An infallible prophet can be wrong about big things as well as small. If you say he can't make mistakes about big things, that's pretty much functional infallibility.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No, but it would be hard for me to believe that the same mistakes are repeated many times in General Conference and Church books. 
Imagine in your job. What happens when you make the same mistake over and over again? You could get fired.   
If we see the same mistakes in Conference for decades, how can we know that 95% of Conference is accurate?

Why would this be hard to believe?
We've had numerous previous dispensations where God has revealed his truth to man and through their actions and changes in their beliefs that truth has been lost.
We as human beings are very good at moving away from revealed truths.  Our prophets today are no more infallible than the Apostles in Christ's dispensation or those that came after Moses, Abraham, or Noah.

Some would have us believe that the Church is progressing forward, getting more and more doctrinally correct.  This may be the case.
Others would have us believe that the Church is moving away from the doctrinal truth.  They tend to get excommunicated.

But we also know from scripture that this is the last restoration/dispensation.  So either the Church progresses forward to perfection or stumbles a bit until God corrects it.
Either way, it's all a matter of faith.

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Dying spiritually, sounds pretty bad if we don't sustain the prophet.  

Yes. But again that's an issue of authority not infallibility. 

Quote

Interesting reading of history.  He talked about the priesthood ban change "as one of the greatest disclosures", yet he fails to see how social pressures influenced this event.  Seems like he wants to craft a narrative that the church leaders are immune and independent of their surrounding environments.  I've heard this before, its honestly quite ignorant of history and of how societies and people work.  

I don't see him saying that. It's a pretty clear doctrine that we have to study things when asking to get answers. And undeniably they did that at the time.

Quote

Supreme court analogy is a pretty strong legalistic metaphor to use, doesn't sound like we're free to interpret the counsel of leaders using this kind of language.  

Not sure what you're saying here. I'm certainly not saying anything goes just because the Brethren are fallible. I think those making the claim of "having it both ways" are actually conflating several different issues. To draw an analogy if I'm a soldier I can think my lieutenant is fallible. I may even think he's an imbecile making my life dangerous. It doesn't mean I get to choose on my own what to do.

I think those, like yourself, pushing the "both ways" narrative may think fallibility entails tolerance for individuals believing anything and acting anyway. I don't see that following at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but clearly from your comments you think fallibility entails things I don't.

Quote

So I'm bound by the proclamations of church leaders regardless of how I interpret their validity.  Bound even by their fallible teachings.  More strong language here.  

Pretty much, although I'd question what "bound" means. The prophet has said lots of things like "do your home teaching" that don't exactly have a lot of consequences if you don't do it. Other than people becoming annoyed with you.

Quote

And here is the key, this is the same that Elder Anderson has recently articulated.  Its the unanimity in the quorums that makes their statements aligned with deity.  His confidence is in the unanimous actions of the church leaders.  He sounds less confident in individual ideas, but in the unanimous he is completely confident things are divinely inspired.  So infallibility is checked by unanimity.  

That's not what he said though. It provides a check and balance, with a clear allusion to the checks and balances in the US government to make abuse rare. He then follows it up with an appeal to personal responsibility to find out via the Holy Ghost what is correct. After saying that he quotes Brigham Young warning against a "self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders..."

So I think you're misreading it pretty bad.

 

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think it's a good example. An infallible prophet can be wrong about big things as well as small. If you say he can't make mistakes about big things, that's pretty much functional infallibility.

Good grief. How does that follow logically?

They can be wrong about reasonably big things such as the issues related to racism. It's just that if they were going to lead the church into apostasy God would stop them. 

[clarkgoble]

40 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes, I think in psychology studies.  It is my understanding that non-republicable papers are thrown out.   

Nope. Most aren't tested. We only know about the lack of replicability because the last couple of years there were some major studies testing the replicability of major papers in several fields. Thus the replicability crisis.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Good grief. How does that follow logically?

They can be wrong about reasonably big things such as the issues related to racism. It's just that if they were going to lead the church into apostasy God would stop them. 

Seems a bit nebulous. When does one know that getting big things wrong has not ventured into apostasy?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Seems a bit nebulous. When does one know that getting big things wrong has not ventured into apostasy?

When one reads the scriptures that clearly state this is the final dispensation and a total apostasy of the Church will not occur.

Doesn't mean we won't get lost along the way.  Just that the keys, ordinances, and gospel will never be taken again.  God won't allow that.

[mnn727]

As the Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

As the Prophet Joseph Smith declared, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

He also stated "This is life eternal, to know God and Jesus Christ".

That contains all the gospel, depending on how we understand what it means to know them.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Nope. Most aren't tested. We only know about the lack of replicability because the last couple of years there were some major studies testing the replicability of major papers in several fields. Thus the replicability crisis.

Experiments that lack replicability shouldn't be accepted, wouldn't be science.  I am not sure what that has to do with your 95% claim.

Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Experiments that lack replicability shouldn't be accepted, wouldn't be science.  I am not sure what that has to do with your 95% claim.

In practice it tends to be much more complicated. In an ideal world there'd be more socially accepted value in replicating existing studies. In practice the "publish or perish" drive for professors means you get no credit for such things.

My point is just that we accept science as reliable despite not being 95% accurate let alone infallible. It's a point that we don't require infallibility for reliability.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Seems a bit nebulous. When does one know that getting big things wrong has not ventured into apostasy?

Ask God. If you're looking for some public infallible sign there isn't one.

Edited September 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Ask God. If you're looking for some public infallible sign there isn't one.

Did that. I'm told I got the wrong answer.

[Gray]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

When one reads the scriptures that clearly state this is the final dispensation and a total apostasy of the Church will not occur.

Doesn't mean we won't get lost along the way.  Just that the keys, ordinances, and gospel will never be taken again.  God won't allow that.

What about 3 Nephi 16:10?

 

Quote

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

It might not be taken from the earth, but it could be taken from a particular church.

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I claim fallibility along with numerous GAs and have never remotely been called an apostate even when I've taught it in Sunday School.

I think most reasonable people will accept prophetic fallibility... in theory. They may even cite a past example. Old testament, New testament, maybe even D&C or later. But you cannot question a current prophet without being labeled as an apostate, or at least a trouble maker

When speaking to GA's did you cite an example of how the current prophet or teaching is wrong?

People will accept that prophets and apostles are not perfect. No one's perfect, right? But good luck trying to point out how you feel a current prophet is wrong without getting severe push-back.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When speaking to GA's did you cite an example of how the current prophet or teaching is wrong?

No, because I can't think of a case where I think they're wrong. The demand that this only matters if I call the prophet wrong seems silly first off given the limited things they speak on prophetically that aren't already pretty established beliefs and the problem of finding major mistakes.

Edited September 1, 2017 by clarkgoble