Excuses for crazy statements by church leaders

[Sullyute]

Its always bothered when folks don't admit they are/were wrong. Not only does it bother me when church leaders don't admit they were wrong, but it almost bothers me even more when church members make up excuses for what the church leader said as if they were the errant church leader themselves. I guess it just comes with the territory when you think you are right and everybody else is wrong.

Ok, so who is responsible for past errant iterations? Is it the individual themselves? Is it the institution? What if the individual still believes what they said is correct? Should every new Q12 member start his press conference with a list of past statements that he disagrees with?

When you look at an apple tree full of apples there is going to be a couple apples with worms, a few sour ones, maybe even a rotten one or two, but the vast majority are delicious apples. I feel the same way about teachings from church leaders. The bigger question is do we judge church leaders by their individual fruits or what fruit we produce when we follow their counsel?

[Non Sequitur]

He already has:

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/sea...chid=923956899

Are you suggesting that Rocky and Cool Hand Loc are one and the same? (I suspected as much a week after his first post). I liked him then, and I like him now. I don't agree with him, but I admire his passion.

[CardiacCoug]

Here's the thing: since practically nothing said in General Conference ever gets retracted even if blatantly wrong, I think it's safe to say that if something hasn't been mentioned in a few years in an official way then we may or may not believe it anymore.

If you search the General Conference text corpus (http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/), for example, it's been 18 years since anybody said the words Reformed Egyptian in conference. I'm gonna assume we no longer believe that's a real thing.

That search is really pretty fascinating -- 17 mentions of R-rated movies in GC between 1991 and 2003. Then nothing -- the phrase R-rated drops off the map. I'm gonna assume we no longer believe that either.

[CardiacCoug]

We've discussed here quite a bit GBH's (somewhat disturbing to many members) response on 60 Minutes that seemed to suggest we may no longer believe Lorenzo Snow's famous couplet "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."

I probably just don't know how to search for it very well, but looks like that phrase hasn't been quoted since 1977! Makes sense I guess since GBH distanced us from it.

[Maximus]

We've discussed here quite a bit GBH's (somewhat disturbing to many members) response on 60 Minutes that seemed to suggest we may no longer believe Lorenzo Snow's famous couplet "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."

I probably just don't know how to search for it very well, but looks like that phrase hasn't been quoted since 1977! Makes sense I guess since GBH distanced us from it.

You have to look as far back as this years gospel doctrine manual to find the doctrine being taught.

[CardiacCoug]

You have to look as far back as this years gospel doctrine manual to find the doctrine being taught.

The D&C one? You're sure that's been updated in the last 30 years?

I looked it up and I think the manual is from 1999.

[SCcoug]

The D&C one? You're sure that's been updated in the last 30 years?

I looked it up and I think the manual is from 1999.

And not surprisingly the RS/MP Lorenzo Snow manual. Their is a thread on here about it.

[Harry Tic]

Here's the thing: since practically nothing said in General Conference ever gets retracted even if blatantly wrong, I think it's safe to say that if something hasn't been mentioned in a few years in an official way then we may or may not believe it anymore.

It's interesting to see how the church works in this regard. Rarely, if ever, is an explicit disavowal provided. Consider, for instance, BKP's talk in last October's conference. The official version of the talk differs of course in significant ways from the version given. But the changes were not cast as retractions but rather "clarifications" (I happen to think the most interesting development in this case was the retraction of his claim that the "Proclamation on the Family" qualified as scripture. He must have been woodsheded about that one. But by whom?). And of course the preference is to pretend that no changes whatsoever have been made.

But this leaves church members in a bind. Should the assumption be that the earlier teachings are still in force, even if they haven't been widely disseminated from the pulpit in years? More astute church members will recognize that the fact that topics fade and disappear does, in fact, constitute a de facto shift in policy, if not doctrine. Less astute church members don't pick up on the cues and consequently end up citing, say, Ezra Taft Benson talks from the 1960s and will do so ad infinitum until they are told otherwise (and they scratch their heads and exchange theories about why we no longer get stern warnings about socialism in General Conference). They don't realize that that's not how the church abandons former teachings: never (or extremely rarely) through explicit disavowal and almost always through benign neglect.

[Maximus]

The D&C one? You're sure that's been updated in the last 30 years?

I looked it up and I think the manual is from 1999.

I meant the gospel principles manual.

Last chapter talks about exaltation:

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

[Danimal]

Except people don't discuss things here. They proclaim their position in a way that makes it clear that there is no other logical viewpoint. Discussions usually involve sharing opinions and perspectives, and agreeing to disagree respectively. Discussions don't begin with "Does any normal member still believe XXX?," or "Shame on people for believing XXX." Those kinds of statements are common here, and pretty much discussion killers. All that's left is an echo chamber of people trying to outdo one another in their indignation.

That's pretty much the way message boards work. You'll see that in every other forum as well. Read people's views on Marsupial's bare footing. People clearly proclaim their view on it and act like you are crazy if you disagree. It's not unique to religious discussions.

[ERCougar]

Except people don't discuss things here. They proclaim their position in a way that makes it clear that there is no other logical viewpoint. Discussions usually involve sharing opinions and perspectives, and agreeing to disagree respectively. Discussions don't begin with "Does any normal member still believe XXX?," or "Shame on people for believing XXX." Those kinds of statements are common here, and pretty much discussion killers. All that's left is an echo chamber of people trying to outdo one another in their indignation.

I'm sorry...I don't see it. Can you show me some examples? I won't be offended if you pick something I posted--I'm sincerely curious. I feel like people are pretty respectful here, but you're not the only one complaining about it, so I'm open to convincing.

[VirginiaCougar]

Not sure if this thread is a good idea, but that's never stopped me before.

At the end of the day, the church has just been flat our wrong in many situations but it tends to avoid claiming responsibility. The closest I've seen in my lifetime of the church taking responsibility was when Elder Jensen apologized for prop 8. That was pretty cool. But there are plenty of situations where the church was wrong but they (meaning the brethren, correlation committee or local leaders) found a convenient excuse to not have to admit they were wrong. So here's my list off the top of my head:

• Operating with limited light when the negro doctrine was reversed - still don't understand this one as it seems to say that God doesn't reveal everything that should be revealed...but whatever.
• He's not the prophet - this one is usually used for crazy statements by apostles, who we apparently sustain as prophets, seers, revelators but only when they don't say crazy things
• He wasn't speaking as a prophet - I especially love this one when people are dodging a crazy statement made in GC. I mean, if he's not speaking as a prophet during GC then when is he speaking as a prophet?

Others?

The story by Spencer W. Kimball's son about his father's process in changing the policy regarding the Blacks and the Priesthood is fascinating. Below is the BYU Studies link where he describes the process. SWK worried a great deal about certain members of the 12 (who specifically won't surprise many of us), but also understood that the church works primarily on a consensus basis among the 12.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf

I believe that one of the real problems many have with the church is that they expect infallibility among mortal men. Church leaders are men, and make mistakes, have personality quirks, are caught up in their own philosophies, etc. We know that the early LDS church had black priesthood members and it was later leaders that changed what was clearly acceptable early on. These men are strongly (for the most part) deeply embedded in a a Western, Conservative, and American cultural overlay which exists on top of the church and its principles. Many men and church leaders struggle to separate that cultural overlay from gospel principles, often conflating one for the other. It still continues.

My personal experience is that we eventually get there and we see it on a number of issues (like prop. 8, Blacks, etc.) It just takes flawed men a bit of time to do it.

As far as taking responsibility, we do on occasion - but you are right that it isn't often. In the very few discussions I've had with folks in Salt Lake, for most it isn't that they aren't apologetic (although there are some), it is fear that if they admit mistakes very conservative (not speaking politically, although there is a relationship) members would be deeply troubled by those steps. At one level, I understand that having grown up for part of my life in Provo and later in Sandy. But I also don't think they give most of us credit for being able to understand the nuances between the gospel and weaknesses of men, even church leaders.

[myboynoah]

I'm sorry...I don't see it. Can you show me some examples? I won't be offended if you pick something I posted--I'm sincerely curious. I feel like people are pretty respectful here, but you're not the only one complaining about it, so I'm open to convincing.

I suggest you start with people's views on Marsupial's bare footing, then find other examples in every other forum.

[myboynoah]

The story by Spencer W. Kimball's son about his father's process in changing the policy regarding the Blacks and the Priesthood is fascinating. Below is the BYU Studies link where he describes the process. SWK worried a great deal about certain members of the 12 (who specifically won't surprise many of us), but also understood that the church works primarily on a consensus basis among the 12.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf

I believe that one of the real problems many have with the church is that they expect infallibility among mortal men. Church leaders are men, and make mistakes, have personality quirks, are caught up in their own philosophies, etc. We know that the early LDS church had black priesthood members and it was later leaders that changed what was clearly acceptable early on. These men are strongly (for the most part) deeply embedded in a a Western, Conservative, and American cultural overlay which exists on top of the church and its principles. Many men and church leaders struggle to separate that cultural overlay from gospel principles, often conflating one for the other. It still continues.

My personal experience is that we eventually get there and we see it on a number of issues (like prop. 8, Blacks, etc.) It just takes flawed men a bit of time to do it.

As far as taking responsibility, we do on occasion - but you are right that it isn't often. In the very few discussions I've had with folks in Salt Lake, for most it isn't that they aren't apologetic (although there are some), it is fear that if they admit mistakes very conservative (not speaking politically, although there is a relationship) members would be deeply troubled by those steps. At one level, I understand that having grown up for part of my life in Provo and later in Sandy. But I also don't think they give most of us credit for being able to understand the nuances between the gospel and weaknesses of men, even church leaders.

Yep, you're probably right.

[LA Ute]

Except people don't discuss things here. They proclaim their position in a way that makes it clear that there is no other logical viewpoint. Discussions usually involve sharing opinions and perspectives, and agreeing to disagree respectively. Discussions don't begin with "Does any normal member still believe XXX?," or "Shame on people for believing XXX." Those kinds of statements are common here, and pretty much discussion killers. All that's left is an echo chamber of people trying to outdo one another in their indignation.

Careful. These kinds of thoughts here will bring you responses like "get over it."