- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am plowing through the David O. Mckay biography from Greg Prince, and I am astonished! Greg wrote what the data showed him, not whitewashing anything. There are examples of tensions, mistakes, conflicts, blunders, lies, and everything else that happened. My heart goes out to President Mckay to have to deal with all of that, and I am grateful for the wonderful records Clare Middlemiss kept! Part of my faith crisis has involved the “infallibility” idea that is pushed in so many ways in our theology. We say in some ways that we don’t push that, but in SLC where I live, it is alive and well: “the prophet will never lead the church astray…” etc. This book makes so many things more clear: the “brethren” are people, and on bad days, they mess it up BAD just like everyone else.
=======================================================================================
Here is a hypothetical example of what I am feeling:
Imagine you are a child playing ball with your father. He looses his temper, throws a bat to the side and hits you by accident. He yells at you: “Well, why were you standing there!?” You were trying to help because you love your dad, but you get hurt and yelled at because of his anger. And, your feelings are discounted as a result as well. When you discuss this with your mother, she says: “Well, you shouldn’t have been standing there.” (she says this to protect her husband’s reputation, perhaps because she is afraid of him, or whatever reason,…but she says this.) So, you come away from the experience thinking you were responsible for getting hit because you stood where you shouldn’t have. But, how do you know where to stand going forward? And how do you avoid flying bats?
You begin to look for clues to know where to stand in every situation, how to act in every situation, and you cease to follow your heart because of love and begin to conform because getting hit with a bat hurts. Getting yelled at because you got hit with a bat hurts more.
As time passes, you begin to realize that perhaps your dad made a mistake. But, it is in the past, and dad’s “don’t make mistakes” because you revere them. They are the world to you, and they help you know what to do. But something else begins to happen: you have learned to rely on them to tell you where to stand, how to act, how to behave, and what is right and wrong–because after all, you are the one who made that bat fly through the air and hit you–you were responsible for that. So, you find yourself going to your father for everything, and he gets frustrated because: “You need to make your own choices.” But, you don’t know how…after all, him throwing that bat was YOUR FAULT,…and you need HIM to tell you where to stand because your love and desire, which motivated where you were standing when you got hit, was clearly wrong. But, he doesn’t give you all the answers like you want and need. What ultimately happens is you begin to question his motives anyway. You love him, but he is NOT telling you what you need, and you are getting in trouble now because he wants you to think for yourself, but you can’t.
You can’t stand in the right place; you make bats fly through the air and hit you; you learn you were stupid for standing there in the first place; you learn not to trust your feelings of love and desire to help; you learn from your supporting mother that you were wrong; you learn to become dependent; you learn that answers don’t come when you need them later on; you are wrong for not doing your own thinking;……
Pretty soon you rebel. Pretty soon you get right pissed off. You come to realize that your dad was the one who threw the bat. He was the one who yelled. But, he made no mistake, and it is his policy to “never apologize” (remember Oak’s statement?) You find yourself utterly alone, having to make decisions on your own, and having to recognize that your dad blew it, and his attitude about those mistakes created a complete dependency which HE (and your support networked mother) championed.
Pure recipe for faith crisis and rebellion. But, thank goodness that God will remove the prophet if he ever makes a mistakes that leads the Church astray. He is, after all, infallible.
Wait,…is God telling me I was wrong for standing there; I was the reason I got hit with the bat?
=============
The brethren make mistakes,..and some of those are big nasty ones. I can understand mistakes. I can work through mistakes. I can forgive mistakes. I struggle, however, with flying bats and being told that I was responsible
I’m not quite clear on who is making you feel responsible for being ‘hit with the bat’. Do you think God finds you responsible or are other people finding you responsible? On another note, I also dislike the ‘the prophet is always right’ thought. I’ve heard people say ‘the prophet is a person too, see, he likes to go to baseball games just like us, etc.’ But I never hear ‘it is possible for the prophet to tell us something that is not from God.’ My husband and I have recently come to terms with this. After all, several prophets in the bible did horrible things. Just being a prophet doesn’t make you infallable. I think it is definitely way less common now for prophets to go completely crazy because none of them have murdered or ordered people to rape or anything horrid like that. But I am comfortable in knowing that prophets sometimes make mistakes and that’s why personal prayer about things the prophet said are so important. Then you can figure out for yourself if what he said is God’s word or just the prophet’s words.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I do not understand all the details of the metaphor but my suggested answer is the same… boundaries. Yes, it sucks that people and organizations that were the pillars of our worldview can be hurtful. It sucks that we need to build a new worldview that can accommodate what we now perceive as the new reality.
Just to say it, I admire Pres. McKay greatly. My mother worked for a short time before marrying my father in his office as a secretary, and I got a good, balanced view of some things most members don’t get (nothing truly confidential) from her talking about that job. She adored him, but she also talked about the “discussions” that the leaders had regularly that I probably would call arguments. Yep, the concept of infallibility is dismissed widely, but “practical infallibility” is taught in its place. By that, I mean that most members will acknowledge that apostles and even Presidents can make mistakes or be wrong about some things, but, in practical terms, they won’t admit that apostles and Presidents can DO things that aren’t God’s will. The justifications then get created to excuse things that are wrong, sometimes obviously, since those people just can’t accept an apostle or President doing something wrong. In most cases, the justifications are MUCH worse than the original wrong – and the justifications make it harder for those wrongs to be corrected in the future.
There is opposition in all things, including good people. Sometimes, life rears it head and bites people in the butt – and, sometimes, that bite is vicious. An extreme example that most people don’t consider:
The wise men who traveled to worship the new-born King of the Jews ended up being directly responsible for the deaths of many innocent children.The only answer I have is gaining new perspective and “putting away childish things” when we become adults. Infallibility is one childish thing we can bury.
Rob, you are hitting on one the hardest times I have been having with leaders over the last little while. I have studied quite a bit of (uncorrelated) church history the last 3+ years. I have come to be able to forgive to a large extent mistakes I have seen being made. But your analogy of the dad telling the son “it is your fault for standing there” hits home in that dad isn’t showing any responsibility for his mistakes. Instead he keeps saying things that lead you to feel he never makes mistakes. Then dad gets up in general conference and just about says, “I can’t make a mistake” (i.e. – “we will not, we can not lead you astray”). I can’t seem to work through this. That lack of admitting (apologizing) when dad makes a mistake distances me from wanting to be with him. I keep coming back to this being one of the most sticky issues I have been wresting with for more than the last 18 months – and I don’t seem to be making progress on it.
Thanks all for the responses. The allegory:
Child:me when my faith was young Dad:GAs and policies like LOC and the harsh “go to hell” way it was taught, ignoring “no influence can or ought to be maintained” (unless you are a GA, then you can dictate like a king). For example, I was taught that “every young man should serve a mission”, and coercive means were used during that time of my life to enforce that. Others have experienced that. The LGBT thing people struggle with now. Its an edict—bat in head. Too bad for you who don’t like it, because it seems to me you don’t get to say: “Hey, you made a mistake for throwing that bat.” Nope. You can say all you want, but you wont get an apology, and no explanation other than “they know what they are doing”…and “you shouldn’t fight this, because if you do, its your own fault you are standing in the wrong place…” Mom:local leaders who justify the GAs, all the time (at least in my youth). Infallibility:ETB 14 points, Bruce McConkie Mormon Doctrine, Correlation and massive top-down leadership shift with a “no nonsense do what I say”attitude….etc. Attitude of people like Joseph Field Smith who were “right”…and don’t you mess with them. After all, according to ETB, the Prophet has spoken, and the debate if OVER! That is how that little allegory was intended…to go along those lines.
Rob4Hope wrote:I am plowing through the David O. Mckay biography from Greg Prince, and I am astonished! Greg wrote what the data showed him, not whitewashing anything. There are examples of tensions, mistakes, conflicts, blunders, lies, and everything else that happened. My heart goes out to President Mckay to have to deal with all of that, and I am grateful for the wonderful records Clare Middlemiss kept!
Rob4Hope – John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories interview of Greg Prince was one of the first things I listened to in the beginning of all this. What a relief it was to hear.
I have also listened to this. I was impressed. I loved the talk. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Old-Timer wrote:The only answer I have is gaining new perspective and “putting away childish things” when we become adults. Infallibility is one childish thing we can bury.
Gone and buried in my view. I wish as a church we could do the same. The way we currently do it, it’s a lot like the deification of Emporers and Kings. That way lies deflated expectations and faith crises. If I know that the person leading is weak just like anyone else, then when they make mistakes I am not disappointed. But when they are supposed to be larger than life, and then make mistakes, it can be a blow to peoples’ testimonies.
SilentDawning wrote:Old-Timer wrote:The only answer I have is gaining new perspective and “putting away childish things” when we become adults. Infallibility is one childish thing we can bury.
Gone and buried in my view. I wish as a church we could do the same. The way we currently do it, it’s a lot like the deification of Emporers and Kings. That way lies deflated expectations and faith crises. If I know that the person leading is weak just like anyone else, then when they make mistakes I am not disappointed. But when they are supposed to be larger than life, and then make mistakes, it can be a blow to peoples’ testimonies.
I don’t know that I would call it leading “in weakness”. I would say “humility”. If a weak person is confronted with evidence that they screwed up, they often will do things to cover it up or try and make it go away. A humble person would admit it.I keep coming back to my frustration with the church being less about the history and more about handling the less than humble leaders after I have learned the history and how to frame it.
LookingHard wrote:SilentDawning wrote:Old-Timer wrote:The only answer I have is gaining new perspective and “putting away childish things” when we become adults. Infallibility is one childish thing we can bury.
Gone and buried in my view. I wish as a church we could do the same. The way we currently do it, it’s a lot like the deification of Emporers and Kings. That way lies deflated expectations and faith crises. If I know that the person leading is weak just like anyone else, then when they make mistakes I am not disappointed. But when they are supposed to be larger than life, and then make mistakes, it can be a blow to peoples’ testimonies.
I don’t know that I would call it leading “in weakness”. I would say “humility”. If a weak person is confronted with evidence that they screwed up, they often will do things to cover it up or try and make it go away. A humble person would admit it.I keep coming back to my frustration with the church being less about the history and more about handling the less than humble leaders after I have learned the history and how to frame it.
I understand this very much. There is a pattern of concerns with things. For example, the Greg Prince McKay book spoke about HBL and correlation changes that took autonomy out of the hands of auxiliary leadership and concentrated it from a “top down” approach, going way beyond what DOM requested originally. This is part of the reason why a top-down leadership that is NOT responsive to concerns from the bottom seems so rampant now. It makes the leaders seem “less than humble”, and it also places a massive wedge between those on the bottom and the edicts presented from the top. We have no choice but to become “yes men” to be considered full and devout members.
And other problems existed that were profound: there was conflict between HBL, DOM, Earnest Wilkinson, Elder Moyle, Elder Brown (FP members), and others. They couldn’t stand what ETB said politically while DOM was alive, and there was real friction and hardship between these guys. The leadership was a swirling mess: Men like HBL, ETB, JFS and others were adamantly opposed to blacks receiving the priesthood; there was a period of “baseball baptisms” that happend causing all kinds of serious problems (and it filtered into my mission area as well); there were financial problems that were horrible, partly from mismanagement of funds; there were issues with BYU and the CES, including scandals to filter out political persons who didn’t confirm to “non-communist” ideals according to crazy opinion of what mattered; and the list goes on and on.
In the church, we are led to believe that all decisions are made with inspiration. We believe a man must be called of God by prophecy,…right?…and we take that WAY BEYOND. This is the Church of JC of LDS, and He directs this work….right? After reading this book, I have to say that I see men who are doing the best they can, and all kinds of human passion, fallacy, disagreements, mistakes, anger, and everything else gets into it. Are the GAs inspired in every single decision they make?
Greg Prince would probably laugh and say, with a smile,…nope.
But here is the rub….the church teaches infallibility, and Ray, you indicate this is a “childish” perspective. I disagree. Why?…because it is taught. Just today someone in church whipped out the WW quote about the infallibility of the prophet, and the consensus in the class was a clear amen affirmation.
It appears that sacrifices are often made to accomplish something that, unfortunately, hurts others–but the general membership of the church is not made privy to the reason, and hence there is an “edict” that makes the policy known.
I think there are policies and practices in the church that are the same today. For example, this idea of prophetic infallibility. Slowly you hear people like Uchdorf and Holland talking about mistakes being made, and how problems have sometimes happened. But you also have others who preach 14 Points from ETB in conference still. There is a split it seems on opinion. The question I find myself asking over and over is WHY!….WHY do the GAs allow the doctrine of infallibility, which is clearly wrong, to continue?
The reason I believe is because the potential damage done to the TBM community would be catastrophic. If they come out and say: “Hey,..the prophet is not always right”…there would be blood in the water and all kinds of problems would result. Just like the handling of BRM book Mormon Doctrine, sometimes the policy is to try to let it die out over time.
I’ve seen a lot of this….let it die out over time. What happens however, is the leftover talks and opinions are continually printed, and cause problems and conflict when dug up. The biggest question I find myself asking is: “Why is there not a move to purge false doctrine from the reservoir of discourses and teachings that are become so massive?” Perhaps a purge is too much–would seem like censorship–but if that is the case why not a clear declaration about what is doctrine and what isn’t?
How many people were hurt by the book Mormon Doctrine? It was not a church publication–but the tone and authority with which is was conveyed caused that impression. How many people used that for creating talks? How many times did that book influence lessons, discourse, and even faithful debate? It had a negative impact on me with certain sections, and from Greg Prince’s interview, it appears missionary work in the south has seriously been damaged by that book.
Prince explained in his book that in order to preserve BRM’s career and influence, there were sacrifices made. That is something that seems to drive policy in the high levels of the church: to preserve the influence of fellow leaders, corrections are not made–but other sacrifices are made.
I believe there are sacrifices being made now as well, and that is part of the struggle many of us find ourselves in.
So, pulling this back full circle, LookingHard (my friend), I think that in a way, we (and others like us) are the ones being sacrificed. We have legitimate concerns, but because of the problems that currently exist, the leadership makes a choice to preserve a group, sometimes at the expense of others.
That is what I really think at this point.
I see only one two part solution: 1) acknowledge that the GAs have some real problems sometimes that THEY are responsible for–its on them; 2) forgive them.
That is all I can think to do.
Just to be clear, I didn’t say those who believe in infallibility are childish people. I said the idea of infallibility is childish. It is fundamentally human among children, who tend to see their parents’ strengths and not their weaknesses. Children usually grow out of it when they become old enough to recognize weaknesses, even serious ones – and peace comes from acceptance of their parents as mortals just like themselves, doing the best they can.
I agree, Rob, with your solution. It doesn’t dictate any one course of action relative to activity, but it is the only way to peace and charity of which I am aware.
I don’t think that infallibility is a doctrine, but there are some teachingsthat tend to support people holding a beliefof GA and above infallibility. From what I can see the belief has now become almost a cultural icon that anybody from the “outside” of GA’s and above will probably not be able to change this. There will be people that leave because of it, but that can and does lead to those that stay to cling even stronger to the belief. Some might needto view a leader as being something more special than the way they currently perceive themselves in order to believe that god can talk to man. In that sense clinging to infallibility is what helps them maintain their faith. LookingHard wrote:From what I can see the belief has now become almost a cultural icon that anybody from the “outside” of GA’s and above will probably not be able to change this.
I think it is more than this,…it is taught, at least at the local level. The WW quote in the back of the D & C is pulled over and over, used to justify this and that, and to stifle debate and opinion. I saw this happen last week. I have family members and friends who pull this over and over,…and it goes on and on.
What the culture teaches is often where the level of peer pressure and mores originate. This idea of “God will remove the prophet if he teaches wrong”…and “We can not lead you astray” are culturally entrenched ideas.
I don’t know about the rest of you folks, but I live smack dab in the the middle of Mormon beltway in SLC, Ut. The TBM level runs deep here,..and even deeper in Utah County areas. The doctrinal thought here is that the prophet will never lead the church astray,…and that pushes into what the prophet teaches as being infallible. When I have brought this up, you should see (and feel) the utter panic/anxiety that grows to a loud simmer. People square off in their corners of opinion as they feel their very testimony is being attacked–they really see it that way.
I have learned to remain silent. People can’t talk about this stuff at all where I am–it freaks them out and that BADLY….
You have people who are in Fowlers’s stage 3,..and they have dug in–“Follow the prophet [only],…he knows the way!” Those of us who are passing through stage 4–well, we want answers, and so we ask questions that are taken as attacks from the stage 3 folks. We are utter apostates to them, told things like: “You think too much!” and “You just need to have faith!” and (my favorite) “You don’t need to know the answer to that!!!”
Anyway,…I don’t know what stage 5 feels like, but I am feeling different after reading this book and processing some things. I had never considered that forgiving the GAs for the mess they sometimes make (and cover up) was a solution. WOW! Full circle for me,…because at one time, I was the most orthodox stage 3 person there could have ever been.
I wish this Fowler progression through stage 4 didn’t hurt so damned bad though! Cuz hurt it really does…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.