Utchdorf, Sometimes we have made mistakes

[Sunday21]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/dieter-uchtdorf-mormon-leader-church-mistakes_n_4059683.html

Thank you so much for saying this. The church is true but the mission is carried out by people. Sometimes people make mistakes. There is a need for us to pray and discuss with God, the advice we receive from leaders. 

[The Folk Prophet]

I'll resurrect my old signature but with the wording slightly altered:

If prophets and apostles can make mistakes, then maybe the prophets and apostles who say prophets and apostles made mistakes are mistaken.

Edited July 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

No one ever points out this passage from that same talk by Pres. Uchtdorf:

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/dieter-uchtdorf-mormon-leader-church-mistakes_n_4059683.html

Thank you so much for saying this. The church is true but the mission is carried out by people. Sometimes people make mistakes. There is a need for us to pray and discuss with God, the advice we receive from leaders. 

Just for my own benefit, what leaders do you associate with mistakes?

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Just for my own benefit, what leaders do you associate with mistakes?

I would think that less relevant than the possible implied suggested reaction to finding out that a leader was mistaken.

[estradling75]

19 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No one ever points out this passage from that same talk by Pres. Uchtdorf:

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

Indeed...  You want an example of a Prophet making a mistake... I give you Joseph Smith losing the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation he did...

You want an example of a Prophet's mistake not affecting the appointed course or its destiny... I give you Joseph Smith losing the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation he did..

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

Quote

“To be perfectly frank,” Uchtdorf said, “there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”

I've always grappled with the worst of the worst.  I'm just melodramatic that way.  GA and 1st quorum of the seventy member George P. Lee always tops my list.  Excommunicated for "apostasy and other conduct unbecoming a member of the Church."  Convicted of sexually molesting a child.   I mean, our church is remarkably free of taints like this, but you can find exceptions here and there.  Stake President Clayton Hildreth, convicted of hopping state lines to have sex with a minor.  A Bishop here and there.  In 20 years of paying attention, I've only gathered a tiny handful of such stories.  I'll gladly compare our church's track record against any other organization or demographic.  But yes indeed, we don't become perfect and lose our natural man just because we accept a calling, even a senior leadership calling.

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/dieter-uchtdorf-mormon-leader-church-mistakes_n_4059683.html

Thank you so much for saying this. The church is true but the mission is carried out by people. Sometimes people make mistakes. There is a need for us to pray and discuss with God, the advice we receive from leaders. 

I agree @Sunday21. I think it is profoundly naive to expect everything/everyone in the church to be perfect.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I agree @Sunday21. I think it is profoundly naive to expect everything/everyone in the church to be perfect.

I don't consider it profound, however, to know that everything/everyone in the church is not perfect. Because....who thinks that?

I ask again: What is the implied suggested course of action if one discovers that a leader is mistaken in something or other? Because, really, that's the question at hand. Not whether leaders are mistaken sometimes. But, rather, what are we to do about it?

[NeuroTypical]

Good story: In my wife's ward a long time ago, a new member moved in.  People got to know him quickly, because the week he moved in, he was involved in an auto accident with a ward member, and immediately filed a lawsuit.  He apparently had a certain personality - I forget how they characterized it, but they didn't have much positive to say. 

Anyway, in a short amount of time, he was called to be bishop over this ward.  Now there's a group of people who can answer TFP's question.  The whole ward, including the new bishop, struggled very hard with this new state of affairs.  I wasn't there to see any of this happen, but folks tell me that looking back, he was one of the best bishops they ever had, and many members grew immensely in the gospel as they wrestled with what it meant to sustain someone with so many obvious flaws.  

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Good story: In my wife's ward a long time ago, a new member moved in.  People got to know him quickly, because the week he moved in, he was involved in an auto accident with a ward member, and immediately filed a lawsuit.  He apparently had a certain personality - I forget how they characterized it, but they didn't have much positive to say. 

Anyway, in a short amount of time, he was called to be bishop over this ward.  Now there's a group of people who can answer TFP's question.  The whole ward, including the new bishop, struggled very hard with this new state of affairs.  I wasn't there to see any of this happen, but folks tell me that looking back, he was one of the best bishops they ever had, and many members grew immensely in the gospel as they wrestled with what it meant to sustain someone with so many obvious flaws.  

That is a great story, and it's true-you never know what'll happen. That guy everyone thinks is a scumbag might have a wonderful heart of gold, for sure. 

Or, he might really be a scumbag. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that he is really a scumbag. Not directly engaged in any blatant extreme sins...just a real jerk. No heart of gold at all.

How should that affect our actions related to his leadership?

[Vort]

I object to the obviously (obvious to me) false implications that so many antagonists outside and inside the Church impute to these words. Everywhere, it seems, President Uchtdorf's words are used as an admission of fault in some specific area. "So THAT'S why blacks of African descent didn't receive the Priesthood!" "So THAT'S why Joseph Smith taught polygamy!" "So THAT'S why Primary children don't sing 'Give, Said the Little Stream' any more!" Whatever your personal beef with the teachings of the gospel or the doings of the Church, you can always invoke The Uchtdorf Clause.

Baloney. To use President Uchtdorf's rather obvious, if candid, statement from four years ago to support one's own hobby horse of historical revisionism is simply another form of dishonesty.

[Guest]

Let's see, where the concept of assuming the Prophet is wrong whenever we feel like it takes us...

Because man is fallen and has failings, man cannot be expected to act responsibly in anything spiritual.  Anyone who says they've heard the voice of the Spirit is apparently mistaken since it is obviously a result of his fallen nature.

That's why we needed a Savior. We can't depend on man for anything -- even to accept the truth of the Atonement.

Good thing we're all saved no matter what.

/

We either believe in an inspired prophet or not.  Does that mean we blindly follow?  No.  We're specifically given direction to pray for personal revelation on all matters we receive from the Prophet.  That puts us on equal footing (as far as such revelation goes) with the Prophet.  But some wish to take this to the point that we're above the prophet.  That's not the way it's supposed to be.  It sounds too reminiscent of affirmative action and modern feminism.  They no longer wish to be equal.  They wish to be "more equal" than others.

The difference is:

1) I just don't believe that!  I know the Prophet is wrong.  He's got to change his thinking about this.  Or I sure hope the next one is better than him.
2) I have a hard time with that message.  I've prayed and I haven't felt any kind of confirmation.  I'll continue praying about it.  But I just can't get on that bandwagon until I feel that confirmation.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Let's see, where the concept of assuming the Prophet is wrong whenever we feel like it takes us...

Because man is fallen and has failings, man cannot be expected to act responsibly in anything spiritual.  Anyone who says they've heard the voice of the Spirit is apparently mistaken since it is obviously a result of his fallen nature.

That's why we needed a Savior. We can't depend on man for anything -- even to accept the truth of the Atonement.

Good thing we're all saved no matter what.

/

We either believe in an inspired prophet or not.  Does that mean we blindly follow?  No.  We're specifically given direction to pray for personal revelation on all matters we receive from the Prophet.  That puts us on equal footing (as far as such revelation goes) with the Prophet.  But some wish to take this to the point that we're above the prophet.  That's not the way it's supposed to be.  It sounds too reminiscent of affirmative action and modern feminism.  They no longer wish to be equal.  They wish to be "more equal" than others.

The difference is:

1) I just don't believe that!  I know the Prophet is wrong.  He's got to change his thinking about this.  Or I sure hope the next one is better than him.
2) I have a hard time with that message.  I've prayed and I haven't felt any kind of confirmation.  I'll continue praying about it.  But I just can't get on that bandwagon until I feel that confirmation.

3) I don't have confirmation on that message but I know the church is true and is led by priesthood authority so I accept and will move forward in faith whether I get specific confirmation or not.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that he is really a scumbag. Not directly engaged in any blatant extreme sins...just a real jerk. No heart of gold at all.

How should that affect our actions related to his leadership?

Well, since I can't see his heart, and I don't know what drives his actions, I would be engaged in unrighteous judgment, and my energies would be best spent cleaning up my own backyard.  Once that was done, I'd just realize the bishop is a sinful fallen error-prone agenda-driven human just like me.  And while his sins may appear more visible than mine, I should seek to support and sustain him, because if I remember correctly, I raised my arm to the square a while ago, and sort of made a promise before God along those lines. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Sunday21]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No one ever points out this passage from that same talk by Pres. Uchtdorf:

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

But individuals may receive personal advice from leaders that is not appropriate.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

3) I don't have confirmation on that message but I know the church is true and is led by priesthood authority so I accept and will move forward in faith whether I get specific confirmation or not.

Ok, I'll grant that in most circumstances.  But I'd believe that the farther from our own philosophy something may be, the more likely we'd be saying #2 rather than #3.  ... ... That really didn't come out right. ... ...  I mean...

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

But individuals may receive personal advice from leaders that is not appropriate.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this idea. Leaders may give personal advice, but that's all it is.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ok, I'll grant that in most circumstances.  But I'd believe that the farther from our own philosophy something may be, the more likely we'd be saying #2 rather than #3.  ... ... That really didn't come out right. ... ...  I mean...

I'd........respond..................but.................

[mordorbund]

14 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

But individuals may receive personal advice from leaders that is not appropriate.

Again, when you say leaders, who are you talking about. You don't have to name names. Just give me some positions.

[Snigmorder]

This reminds me of something Dan Peterson said that I really like.

"Many years ago, while a graduate student in California, I heard the late Stanley B. Kimball (a Latter-day Saint scholar who taught at Southern Illinois University and published extensively on both European and Latter-day Saint historical subjects) speak to a small group about what he termed "the three levels of Mormon history." 

He called the first of these "level A." This level, he said, is the Junior Sunday School version of church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, no leader ever makes a mistake, and all is unambiguously clear. 

"Level B," he said, is the anti-Mormon version of church history—essentially a mirror image of level A or, alternatively, level A turned on its head. On level B, everything that you thought was good and true is actually false and bad. The Mormons (or, at least, their leaders) always or almost always wear black hats, and, to the extent that everything is unambiguously clear, Mormonism is unambiguously fraudulent, bogus, deceptive, and evil. Much in the level B version of Mormonism is simply false, of course; critics of the church have often failed to distinguish themselves for their honesty or for the care with which they've treated the issues they raise. But, in more than a few instances, level B approaches to Mormonism and its past are based on problems that are more or less real. 

The church, Kimball reflected, tends to teach level A history. The trouble with this is that, like someone who has been kept in a germ-free environment and is then exposed to an infectious disease, a person on level A who is exposed to any of the issues that are the fodder for level B will have little resistance and will be likely to fall. 

The only hope in such a case, he continued, is to press on to what he termed "level C," which is a version of church history that remains affirmative but which also takes into account any and all legitimate points stressed by level B. Those on level C are largely impervious to infection from level B. Level B formulations simply don't impress them.

Kimball said that he and his fellow historians operate on level C, and that, on the whole, that's where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. He was deeply convinced, he said, that level C was essentially like level A, except that it is more nuanced and somewhat more ambiguous. (He emphatically denied that level A is "false," or that the church "lies" in teaching it.) He acknowledged, though, that, were he himself a high-ranking church leader, he would be hesitant to take the membership as a whole to level C by means of church curriculum and instruction for the obvious reason that moving people from level A to level C entails at least some exposure to some of the elements of level B, and that such exposure will unavoidably lead some to lose their testimonies. Still, he felt that those who make it through to level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on level A."

Edited July 7, 2017 by Snigmorder

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

But, in more than a few instances, level B approaches to Mormonism and its past are based on problems that are more or less real.

Depends on what one means by "problems" and what one means by "real". Both, to my view, seem to be in the eye of the beholder in regards to these things.

7 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

The church, Kimball reflected, tends to teach level A history. The trouble with this is that, like someone who has been kept in a germ-free environment and is then exposed to an infectious disease, a person on level A who is exposed to any of the issues that are the fodder for level B will have little resistance and will be likely to fall. 

This statement is garbage.

8 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Kimball said that he and his fellow historians operate on level C, and that, on the whole, that's where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. 

It strikes me that where members should be is humble, faithful, and with strong, faith-based, testimonies and that the levels of understanding history is largely irrelevant.

10 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Still, he felt that those who make it through to level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on level A."

Another garbage statement.

 

I understand I'm responding to you quoting someone who was quoting someone, so forgive the implication that I'm criticizing your ideas.

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Depends on what one means by "problems" and what one means by "real". Both, to my view, seem to be in the eye of the beholder in regards to these things.

This statement is garbage.

It strikes me that where members should be is humble, faithful, and with strong, faith-based, testimonies and that the levels of understanding history is largely irrelevant.

Another garbage statement.

I understand I'm responding to you quoting someone who was quoting someone, so forgive the implication that I'm criticizing your ideas.

While I don't completely subscribe to the Level A-B-C Model, I think it's a useful way of approaching things. There is a lot of truth to it. If you have a more useful model to describe how people might progress from a Primary-level understanding to a more nuanced and mature understanding, by all means let's hear it.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

While I don't completely subscribe to the Level A-B-C Model, I think it's a useful way of approaching things. There is a lot of truth to it. If you have a more useful model to describe how people might progress from a Primary-level understanding to a more nuanced and mature understanding, by all means let's hear it.

Don't get me wrong. The problems I have are just what I responded to (and called garbage). I simply don't buy that a C level nuanced understanding of history is the key to avoiding apostasy. Obedience, faith, repentance, and humility are.

As far as there being nuanced levels of understanding history. Sure. Obviously. What I reject is the implication that being smart, knowledgeable, understanding nuance, and working through the levels is the key to strength and solidity in the gospel.

The simple fact is that if one's testimony is centered on the right thing(s) and one is humble and faithful then the criticisms (so-called problems) roll off whether one understands the nuances of it or not.

The church's approach is, and always has been, primarily the building of faith through testimony as given by a witness from the Holy Spirit. Changes the church have made in addressing nuance are a bandaid at best. They (and any further, future efforts in a similar vein) are not a cure and certainly not key to spiritual health.

 

Edit: I also take offense at the implication that the church's focus on testimony and faith equates to presenting a naive A level understanding of things.

Edited July 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet