Fallibility within the church

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Changed highlighted some of the mistakes these men have made over the years and there isn't an infallible way to determine when these men are being fallible and making their mistakes, big and small. 

....which itself implies that you think that infallibility could in principle "exist".

Not exactly a Pragmatic view

Fallibility and infallibility and what defines a "mistake" are in the eyes of the beholder.

Best wishes on your demands for absolute certainty in life

One picks what seems best, and if it doesn't work, one tries something else.  The first choice even if it doesn't work is not necessarily a "mistake"- human beings learn by trial and error.  You like science?  THAT is science.

Edison comes to mind.

It's all in the attitude.

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

....which itself implies that you think that infallibility could in principle "exist".

Not exactly a Pragmatic view

Fallibility and infallibility and what defines a "mistake" are in the eyes of the beholder.

Best wishes on your demands for absolute certainty in life

One picks what seems best, and if it doesn't work, one tries something else.  The first choice even if it doesn't work is not necessarily a "mistake"- human beings learn by trial and error.  You like science?  THAT is science.

Edison comes to mind.

It's all in the attitude.

 

That doesnt seem like something that will sell. Why mormonism? Why sacrifice for uncertainty? I wonder what the brethren think of your squishy theory? 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

That doesnt seem like something that will sell. Why mormonism? Why sacrifice for uncertainty? I wonder what the brethren think of your squishy theory? 

What, the scientific method doesn't work?

Well study it out in your mind and make a decision and see if it works 

[Thinking]

This topic will probably be resurrected in a year, and the faithful LDS will admit their leaders are fallible, but be hesitant to admit to specific mistakes.

Critics will try to trap the faithful LDS into admitting a specific mistake, then claim that particular mistake was too big for even a fallible leader.

Here's the real deal IMO: Most faithful LDS admit the leaders are fallible, but act like they're infallible, especially the FP & Q12.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

This topic will probably be resurrected in a year, and the faithful LDS will admit their leaders are fallible, but be hesitant to admit to specific mistakes.

Critics will try to trap the faithful LDS into admitting a specific mistake, then claim that particular mistake was too big for even a fallible leader.

Here's the real deal IMO: Most faithful LDS admit the leaders are fallible, but act like they're infallible, especially the FP & Q12.

If that is so then it is ironic, since what the brethren tell us is to get our own testimonies for every principle.

I think you are out of touch with the real church as it is today.

You sound straight out of the 1950's and the days of Mormon Doctrine erroneously making the rules.  That all was a sad chapter.

Probably it's the Utah factor in action again.

Edited July 15, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

This topic will probably be resurrected in a year, and the faithful LDS will admit their leaders are fallible, but be hesitant to admit to specific mistakes.

Critics will try to trap the faithful LDS into admitting a specific mistake, then claim that particular mistake was too big for even a fallible leader.

Here's the real deal IMO: Most faithful LDS admit the leaders are fallible, but act like they're infallible, especially the FP & Q12.

I think the perception that someone is acting like the leaders are infallible is often the result of misunderstanding his reason and intent for acting on their counsel.

[Exiled]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What, the scientific method doesn't work?

Well study it out in your mind and make a decision and see if it works 

Would you agree with to each his/her own?  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however, mormonism wants to claim it knows universal beauty when there isn't any evidence for it.  At least this is how the brethren who I know think.  How do you justify missionary work when you, yourself don't agree with universals? Just try it?  The problem with this is that it can be used to justify almost anything.  I had a good feeling about Mr. Madoff ..... I had a good feeling about Mr. Koerber ..... I have a good feeling about this or that organization despite the evidence ....

[Exiled]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

This topic will probably be resurrected in a year, and the faithful LDS will admit their leaders are fallible, but be hesitant to admit to specific mistakes.

Critics will try to trap the faithful LDS into admitting a specific mistake, then claim that particular mistake was too big for even a fallible leader.

Here's the real deal IMO: Most faithful LDS admit the leaders are fallible, but act like they're infallible, especially the FP & Q12.

This is how it is.  I don't know why some just won't admit it.  The FP & Q12 want to continue with this charade because they continually stress obedience to their interpretation of what God is.  They believe that only through strict obedience, as they define it, can one "make" it to wherever.  Yet, they make huge mistakes at times and look all too human.  So, how can belief in their counsel be maintained, given the obvious mistakes that were made?  Well, infallibility exists in the present and as pronouncements are made and demands of obedience are companions thereto.  Infallibility exists until it doesn't.  Demands are also made to not question the brethren and blind obedience is implied.  Fallibility exists only when looking backward.  However, let's throw in a contradictory command to have the individual member independently validate the supposed pronouncements from God's true messengers, while singing "follow the prophet."  This way blame can be foisted on the believer for actually believing in the first place.  You actually believed that God was behind the November 2015 policy?  Silly you, Pres. Nelson was merely speaking as a man when he proclaimed that God was behind the change. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Exiled

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Would you agree with to each his/her own?  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however, mormonism wants to claim it knows universal beauty when there isn't any evidence for it.  At least this is how the brethren who I know think.  How do you justify missionary work when you, yourself don't agree with universals? Just try it?  The problem with this is that it can be used to justify almost anything.  I had a good feeling about Mr. Madoff ..... I had a good feeling about Mr. Koerber ..... I have a good feeling about this or that organization despite the evidence ....

Huh?

The "evidence" produces the feeling, and what keeps you here is your perception of what you call the evidence.

Your feelings expressed on this board are palpably clear which come from what you perceive as the evidence.

As always it's all in one's perception and you are no exception.

 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

This is how it is

Ah yes, the One source of absolute truth in the universe, delivering it right here before us! 

[Underdog]

As to how far I would trust leadership, I would be more likely to trust a local unpaid, volunteer leader, meaning his motives, than I would any GA, especially the top 15, because the GA's are paid and absolutely unapologetic about the non transparency of their compensation. 

 

The GA's practice unadulterated priestcraft in our faces. They cannot and obviously SHOULD not be trusted by anyone but knaves.

[Underdog]

Catholics will tell you the pope is infallible, but nobody believes it.

Mormons say their president is fallible, but nobody believes it.

 

The most abused truth by unscrupulous men: DC 1:38.

[Tacenda]

The differing statements from one prophet to the other that contradict each of their own doctrine at that time. How can a God tell these men two different things, that's why I have trouble believing in their words at times. Recent is Pres. Nelson and the switch with changing back the Nov. '15 policy. 

[changed]

On 7/14/2019 at 3:22 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

This presupposes that following prophets is trusting “the arm of flesh.” That is not a given. 

You do not believe prophets have arms of flesh?

[RevTestament]

On 7/16/2019 at 10:32 AM, Tacenda said:

 

BY's should say "those that are called to live polygamy" - as it seems it wasn't simply a free choice, and for the most part only Church leaders were so called. I guess the Church didn't have enough women for everyone to get that right to exaltation.... I seem to kinda like picking on BY...  or he just seems to contradict scripture too much for me to handle. So, I can understand your having issues with him. I have expressed several of mine in this forum. So, how come I still defend the Church? Because I realize that BY was quite fallible. He also promised the Church that they would get paid for working on the railroad - Oops - to his credit he did end up paying some himself. That certainly doesn't make our scriptures untrue. It just means he believed things that weren't true. If I were going to get stressed about that kind of thing, I could see leaving the Church. I just don't. I follow truth. The Church has truth, and it also has missteps in my judgment, so I follow the truths I see. It is the only Church which follows all the truths of the scriptures. It's what you will do in any other church anyway.

 

[clarkgoble]

On 7/16/2019 at 11:32 AM, Tacenda said:

The differing statements from one prophet to the other that contradict each of their own doctrine at that time. How can a God tell these men two different things, that's why I have trouble believing in their words at times. Recent is Pres. Nelson and the switch with changing back the Nov. '15 policy. 

Isn't the obvious answer that exaltation requires attempted obedience to God's directives given to people but that the particular directives vary by time? Which seems clear given the changes throughout the history of the Bible. Noah was commanded to build an ark but it doesn't follow that everyone is commanded to build an ark. What God commands at one time may be rescinded at an other time. Saying this is a contradiction is like saying we should all be looking for Canaanites to kill because Joshua was told to kill them.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

BY's should say "those that are called to live polygamy" - as it seems it wasn't simply a free choice, and for the most part only Church leaders were so called.

That's incorrect. It wasn't just Church leaders. Everyone in the early Utah period was commanded to do it, although not everyone did. (Porter Rockwell famously refused) As you noted though there was the obvious problem of not enough women. 

Of course as you note just because Brigham Young or Gordon Hinckley believed something doesn't mean their interpretation was correct. Brigham famously preached a sermon at conference, came back in the afternoon and taught the exact opposite. His justification was that in the morning he'd taught what Brigham Young thought and now had to teach what the Lord thought. 

I think a common cheap rhetorical trick people make towards prophets is saying they have to always be prophetic. Joseph's oft quoted (particularly in manuals) statement was, "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." The difficulty is finding out when that is.

Edited July 26, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/26/2019 at 8:44 AM, changed said:

You do not believe prophets have arms of flesh?

Following God is not trusting in the arm of flesh. Just the opposite, in fact.

Prophets are anointed to represent God by means of revelation. When they do so conscientiously, hearkening to them is tantamount to following God.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

On 7/15/2019 at 5:09 AM, mfbukowski said:

If that is so then it is ironic, since what the brethren tell us is to get our own testimonies for every principle.

I think you are out of touch with the real church as it is today.

You sound straight out of the 1950's and the days of Mormon Doctrine erroneously making the rules.  That all was a sad chapter.

Probably it's the Utah factor in action again.

Even before I read your last sentence here, I thought the same thing, I thought for those that believe what you said at first, they need to try living amongst the LDS in Utah, then they'd see the 1950's mentality alive and strong. Scott Lloyd may disagree though.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Following God is not trusting in the arm of flesh. Just the opposite, in fact.

Prophets are anointed to represent God by means of revelation. When they do so conscientiously, hearkening to them is tantamount to following God.

And then you have the followers of Jim Jones who believed that about their prophet, if they are not doing it "conscientiously"

The key for all of us is to get our own testimony directly even about what the prophets are telling us to do.

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And then you have the followers of Jim Jones who believed that about their prophet, if they are not doing it "conscientiously"

The key for all of us is to get our own testimony directly even about what the prophets are telling us to do.

 

I think that’s a given. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Even before I read your last sentence here, I thought the same thing, I thought for those that believe what you said at first, they need to try living amongst the LDS in Utah, then they'd see the 1950's mentality alive and strong. Scott Lloyd may disagree though.

“Disagree” is an understatement. 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Disagree” is an understatement. 

I meant as far as thinking the First Presidency and the twelve as being fallible, are concerned.

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that’s a given. 

I think for many that  do not see the nuances that is not the case.  We hear stories here all the time about people who think we are supposed to follow blindly.  And yes even that has its place in the learning curve.  Had I not followed the principle of tithing "blindly" for a while, I would not have developed a testimony of it.

"The prophet will never lead us astray" is a pretty nuanced statement- many regard that as proof of prophetic infallibility and of course it is not.

"Lead us astray" is not the logical equivalent of "never make a mistake".  But some folks don't see that and so I feel a need to clarify the need for our own testimonies  because someone will always see it the wrong way intentionally or not - sometimes because that was what they were taught- or they misunderstood- in Primary.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think for many that  do not see the nuances that is not the case.  We hear stories here all the time about people who think we are supposed to follow blindly.  And yes even that has its place in the learning curve.  Had I not followed the principle of tithing "blindly" for a while, I would not have developed a testimony of it.

"The prophet will never lead us astray" is a pretty nuanced statement- many regard that as proof of prophetic infallibility and of course it is not.

"Lead us astray" is not the logical equivalent of "never make a mistake".  But some folks don't see that and so I feel a need to clarify the need for our own testimonies  because someone will always see it the wrong way intentionally or not - sometimes because that was what they were taught- or they misunderstood- in Primary.

You sound like you’re talking about Exiled, who accused me of repeating a “follow the Brethren” mantra in nearly all my posts, though I’ve done no such thing. 

In fact, in today’s political parlance, “follow the prophet” is a dog whistle among those of such an attitude. They might claim they are not being insulting when they apply it to faithful Church members, but in fact they are, because what they really mean is follow the prophet <blindly.> Their intent is to cast Church members as mindless automatons. 

Edited July 28, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I meant as far as thinking the First Presidency and the twelve as being fallible, are concerned.

Got it. I strongly disagree that what you refer to disparagingly as “a 1950s mentality” is “alive and strong” in Utah.