- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
What?
I was just agreeing with you. I ask people on this forum all the time to quit beating around the bush and just call it the way it is.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Hahaha…I’m an idiot.
No need to apologize, Dax (or Ann). [Admin Note:]We have moved away from the issue addressed in the original post (and I am as guilty as anyone else), so I am going to start a new thread about one specific situation with regard to polygamy, so I can get input into it from others’ perspectives. Let’s drop the discussion of polygamy in this thread and pick it up in the new thread.
DarkJedi wrote:
Sad but true, Ann. Please understand I am not advocating this position, I’m just pointing out that the church leadership has no way to “save face” on the issue. They cannot admit the wrong because of the damage it would probably do to the faith and testimony of many (but certainly not all). Revelation, especially as related to Joseph Smith, is a key tenet of church teachings and doctrine. In the status quo, a relative very small minority has issues and many of them can be dismissed as irrelevant. Again, I’m not advocating the point of view, I’m just pointing it out.It’s worth bearing in mind that church leaders have in the past admitted they were wrong. They just don’t admit they are wrong as often as they are wrong… at least not when it comes to matters of doctrine. I’m sure they’re as good as the next person at apologising in private to a friend or relative when they were in the wrong.
Quote:There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things… Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
Bruce R. McConkieHowever, I’m also aware that the church membership and a minority of church leaders have built up an aura of infallibility around the leaders (especially The Prophet) in matters of revelation and doctrine. It is not scriptural, it is not doctrinal. But it’s a paradigm that works for many people. Perhaps even the (active) Mormon majority. They find peace, security and certainty in that paradigm. Many of my friends take that view. If prophets admitted too often and to openly that they made mistakes in matters of doctrine it would seriously undermine the peace and faith of many members. As much as I wish for transparency and accountability, I’m not sure I want that more than I want the peace and wellbeing of my friends and family.
Given I have that dilemma as an observer, imagine what the dilemma must be for those in positions of leadership who know that millions of members hang on their every word and make assumptions of doctrinal utterances at their every discourse. It’s a pressure and question I’m glad I don’t have to answer.
McKay…please point out to me where BRM admits he was wrong, as well as any other statements the church had made where they admit they were wrong. Thanks.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Um, cwald, the quote above did exactly that. It said he and everyone else was wrong. More generically, I love the following from Pres. Uchtdorf:
Quote:In some way
we are all susceptibleto such strange thinking. The “truths” we cling to shape the quality of our societies as well as our individual characters. All too often these “truths” are based on incomplete and inaccurate evidence, and at times they serve very selfish motives.
Part of the reason for poor judgment comes from the tendency of mankind to blur the line between belief and truth. We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.
When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.
Unfortunately, this tendency can spread to all areas of our lives—from sports to family relationships
and from religion to politics. Alright. I won’t push it…at least not in this thread. 
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:Alright. I won’t push it…at least not in this thread.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Lol. I enjoy you being here
That’s the closest we’ll get to an official climb-down.
Apparently “Sorry/I was wrong” really are the hardest words (is that a song?)
Even so, when I’ve shared with some members they’ve freaked out. “But, how can he say forget what I said? He’s an apostle and speaks through revelation.”
That’s the main thing I’m getting at. Some members just can’t handle the clear implications of the leaders “prophesying in part” and “speaking through a glass darkly.” They erroneously believe the Mormon prophets are exempt.
And as much as I want the leaders to go out of their way to teach people about their limitations, I want the happiness and stability of my TBM friends more.
Wow, it took me an hour to get to the end of this thread, but I did it. I would just like to add one thing:
Quote:3) We don’t have all the answers.
What would be more meaningful to me is an admission that the answers we think we DO have may not all be right. IMO these are two different things.
Life_Journey_of_Matt wrote:What would be more meaningful to me is an admission that the answers we think we DO have may not all be right.
Yes, that is the Pandora’s box. It is obvious to me that the realization of this idea is what defines an invisible divide in the church.
Orson wrote:Life_Journey_of_Matt wrote:What would be more meaningful to me is an admission that the answers we think we DO have may not all be right.
Yes, that is the Pandora’s box. It is obvious to me that the realization of this idea is what defines an invisible divide in the church.
Indeed.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Life_Journey_of_Matt wrote:Wow, it took me an hour to get to the end of this thread, but I did it.
I would just like to add one thing:
Quote:3) We don’t have all the answers.
What would be more meaningful to me is an admission that the answers we think we DO have may not all be right. IMO these are two different things.
I’m working on an article/blog that uses scripture and quotes from GAs to teach this principle.
It’s a really important message and it’s going to take a very long time to land it.
I haven’t been able to read all the posts on this thread because of time limitations but the topic is one that I feel strongly about so I’ll just add my 2 cents. I love that the church is releasing information that was “hidden” for so long. I hope it will continue. I enjoy history and I believe honesty about the history is a good thing. I’m fine with people making mistakes, I make plenty all the time. What is so emotional for me is that the church spends soooooooo much time teaching about prophets and asking us to follow them. The amount of time we spend on learning how to rely on the arm of flesh is, well, a lot, and it’s obviously not that healthy. IMO that’s one reason why the church is in this uncomfortable position. For so long the leaders have been put on a pedestal and of course the membership is going to follow and believe that the leaders are next to perfect. Having a healthy balance would have been better IMO. I like that Ray and others on this site seem to have found that healthy balance. A less black and white way of looking at the leaders. I think if the church would focus more on Jesus and less on imperfect men the membership would eventually come to a more healthy belief about prophets and their limitations. I know I would feel much better in church. Although history is very interesting to me I can read about it at home. I attend church to learn about Christ. Et voila. That’s all I have to say for now. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.