Are Church Leaders (Past&Present) Acting in Good Faith?

[_Who Knows]

But if both didn't happen, then could he still have acted in good faith?

My use of "good faith" refers to what was in Joseph's head -- did he honestly believe those events happened? My opinion is that he did; ergo, my belief that he acted in "good faith." Whether they actually happened does not bear on this, in my opinion. However, if Joseph, in his head, knew they did not occur, then I agree it is "bad faith."

That's kind of what I'm getting at. Could Joseph Smith have believed that he actually had ancient gold plates, if he, in fact, didn't have them? Likewise, could he have believed that he had actually been visited by god and Jesus, if he, in fact, hadn't?

I could see the 2nd scenario possibly, but not the first. I honestly can't see how someone could actually truly believe they have ancient gold plates if they don't. And, it follows, they could not possibly be acting in good faith, if that is the case.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Could Joseph Smith have believed that he actually had ancient gold plates, if he, in fact, didn't have them? Likewise, could he have believed that he had actually been visited by god and Jesus, if he, in fact, hadn't?

I don't know the answer. I guess he could have "believed" anything, regardless of reality.

I could see the 2nd scenario possibly, but not the first. I honestly can't see how someone could actually truly believe they have ancient gold plates if they don't. And, it follows, they could not possibly be acting in good faith, if that is the case.

I tend to agree. Not actually having physical gold plates, for at least part of the time, would be a major blow to his story.

[_Mister Scratch]

I agree wholeheartedly with Rollo that something mystical and mysterious occurred with Joseph Smith. The question of whether he---or anyone, for that matter---was acting "in good faith" is more complicated, in my opinion. I don't think that an individual's belief that s/he is "acting in good faith" automatically absolves that person of all wrongdoing. For example, the scientists at Los Alamos were in all likelihood "acting in good faith," but does that mean we should totally overlook and forgive what they wrought? I guess ultimately what I'm saying is that the individual himself should not be the one (or at least not the *only* one) who determines what does or does not constitute "acting good faith." E.g., just because ETB thought he was "acting in good faith" to out dissidents and homosexuals at BYU doesn't mean that, in the eyes of the people whose lives were affected, he really was.

[_moksha]

Just rambling: I am wondering if the question of good or bad faith is irrelevant. All the events happened and the Church is in place. Can second guessing change any of that? Jesus said, that when tow or more of are gathered in his name, he will be there. Isn't that sufficient for any Church?

Oh well, end of ramble. I probably missed all the esoteric points anyway.

[_harmony]

That's the problem, Moksha:

All the events happened and the Church is in place.

Did they? All of them?

[_Who Knows]

Just rambling: I am wondering if the question of good or bad faith is irrelevant. All the events happened and the Church is in place. Can second guessing change any of that? Jesus said, that when tow or more of are gathered in his name, he will be there. Isn't that sufficient for any Church?

Oh well, end of ramble. I probably missed all the esoteric points anyway.

IF all of the events happened as described, then the question of good vs. bad faith is irrelevant. It only comes into play if things didn't happen as described.

[_moksha]

Just rambling: I am wondering if the question of good or bad faith is irrelevant. All the events happened and the Church is in place. Can second guessing change any of that? Jesus said, that when tow or more of are gathered in his name, he will be there. Isn't that sufficient for any Church?

Oh well, end of ramble. I probably missed all the esoteric points anyway.

IF all of the events happened as described, then the question of good vs. bad faith is irrelevant. It only comes into play if things didn't happen as described.

There is an unknowability about the events described. We can't be there to peek in Joseph's hat. Claims made may be true or untrue, but to continue rambling, it does not matter. The Church was formed anyway, and exists in various forms and in various locations. To the question: What is truth and if truth where? I dunno... it all seems like a leap of faith to me.

[_desert_vulture]

I'm not as interested in whether you think the church is what it claims, but rather, whether you think church leaders believe what they claim (acting in good faith) or whether they know it's all a sham.

I think they do, in general. I don't see Church leaders as being different than the average, active, believing member. Sure, the GA's may have doubts and questions, like most do, but most GA's have grown up completely ensconced in Mormonism; it's all they know. I think they believe they are inspired from time to time, but also know they make mistakes and sometimes act consistent with their own prejudices and quirks rather than inspiration. I also think they understand, but can never admit publicly, that they are not always inspired in their decisions and often screw up. I'm sure that at least some harbor serious doubts or questions (like Hugh B. Brown, who reportedly questioned the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, or B.H. Roberts, who seemed to question the historicity of the Book of Mormon).

Is GBH acting in "good faith"? I think so, for the most part. I think he may tend to engage a "CYA" posture occasionally, particularly in times of controversy (like the Hofmann bombings), but that is a common human trait that most, if not all, of us employ at times. I think he genuinely believes the LDS Church is true and that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored via Joseph Smith, at least the important parts, and that other parts which confuse or seem wrong on their face, he just ignores, like many members do when faced with troubling issues. Of all Church presidents, I think GBH has been the most candid publicly, and doesn't seem to shy away from acknowledging that he is not a "prophet" in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., regular PPI's with Jesus Christ, or direct revelation on things as small as how many earrings a woman wears, etc.). One problem that he didn't create, but which has become a permanent part of LDS culture and belief, is that GBH can never come right out and say he is not always inspired or that some of his policy decisions have come from men, not God -- to do so might damage many members' testimonies about the Church having a living prophet who always knows the will of the Lord. But, in a relaxed private setting, I bet we'd be amazed about how GBH sees himself in the role of prophet.

In sum, I think by and large the GA's are acting in "good faith;" however, I also think their zeal gets in the way at times as they try to keep control over the masses and silence those who may rock the boat. Again, I see this more as human nature than "bad faith."

I agree with most of your assessment although I think that it is possible that a number of the GAs are always honed for "Danite-esque" work. There is the dirty work of the kingdom, sifting through and eliminating the dissenters in some way or another, taking care of the pesky historians that keep ruffling feathers, and other such dirty deeds. I believe there are always one or two GAs who are assigned to do the "dirty tricks" like Sagretti was for Nixon and Haldeman. The upper echelon do not want to know what they do, just that they get the job done, somehow. Like Porter Rockwell to Joseph Smith, or Bill Hickman to Brigham Young, the church always has henchmen who carry out the orders from on high, with plausible deniability intact. I would assume that the orders came from McConkie on his watch, and now come from BKP and Oaks. BKP and Oaks, and maybe a few other GAs are not acting in good faith because I believe they know the extent of the deception. Oaks and Maxwell were the ones who admitted to Steve Benson that parts of the Book of Mormon were plagiarized. I think the GAs like Packer and Oaks seek out new replacements who have their temperment, to replace them someday, and Bednar appears as a suitable replacement for Packer based on his hardline stance. I believe these men know exactly what is in the First Presidency's vault, how damaging it is to the truth claims of the church, and exist to fight any and all who would expose the truths of the restoration to the world. The remainder of the GAs are good, honest men who truly believe in the historicity of the restored gospel. Maybe there are some who doubt like Roberts or Brown, but they are in the minority and will never publicly address those doubts.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I agree with most of your assessment although I think that it is possible that a number of the GAs are always honed for "Danite-esque" work. There is the dirty work of the kingdom, sifting through and eliminating the dissenters in some way or another, taking care of the pesky historians that keep ruffling feathers, and other such dirty deeds. I believe there are always one or two GAs who are assigned to do the "dirty tricks" like Sagretti was for Nixon and Haldeman.

Certainly possible. I think there are also GA's who go off in their own zeal to smite down dissenters. BKP comes to mind, when his involvement with the ex'ing of some of the September Six was exposed. That was when Dallin Oaks made the now-famous quip to Benson that "it's impossible to stage-manage a grizzly bear [i.e., Packer]," a tacit admission that BKP improperly went off on his own (and apparently without the knowledge or authority of his superiors) and meddled in local disciplinary affairs. An example of a more formal assignment to go out and fight enemies of the Church is the recent "interview" of Dallin Oaks and Lance Wickman (two lawyers who are trained to spin), now posted on LDS.org, which goes after gays in a way I found very upsetting.

The upper echelon do not want to know what they do, just that they get the job done, somehow.

I think this is often true, like in the waning days of polygamy -- Church authorities turned a blind eye to some apostles who continued to solemnize plural unions, despite the 1st and 2nd Manifestos (Wilford Woodruff was one, as well as Snow and JFSmith).

BKP and Oaks, and maybe a few other GAs are not acting in good faith because I believe they know the extent of the deception.

I would characterize it more as "troublesome questions" rather than "deception," but that's just my opinion.

I think the GAs like Packer and Oaks seek out new replacements who have their temperment, to replace them someday, and Bednar appears as a suitable replacement for Packer based on his hardline stance.

They do seem to seek out "yes" men, and Bednar appears perfect for that role.

I believe these men know exactly what is in the First Presidency's vault, how damaging it is to the truth claims of the church, and exist to fight any and all who would expose the truths of the restoration to the world.

I get the feeling that even very few of the Brethren get inside the vault. Probably just the FP, and anyone else on a "need to know" basis.

The remainder of the GAs are good, honest men who truly believe in the historicity of the restored gospel. Maybe there are some who doubt like Roberts or Brown, but they are in the minority and will never publicly address those doubts.

Agreed.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

NONONONONONO