John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_Lemmie]

Totally agree with that. It’s also extremely difficult to search for and land on the essays, the drop down menus are inconsistent and unhelpful in finding information, and even their publication and updating seems buried. It’s a pattern of obfuscation that reads as disingenuous at best, if not outright dishonest.

And it seems to be continuing. I think I mentioned it upthread, but the recent issue with the racist quotes in the new lesson manual illustrates the pattern, too. In early January 2020, Apostle Gary Stevenson said the inclusion was a mistake, and that "they" became aware of it "late last year," and that they wre instructing local leaders to tell the members to refer to the online version for the correction. However, to my knowledge, there's no reports of any units receiving top-down instructions. The only anecdotal examples of such message getting through are cases of individual members bringing it to the attention of the leaders, and then leaders then checking the statement from Elder Stevenson. There doesn't seem to be any readings of letters from the FP about it in Sacrament meeting.

It seems to me that instructions should have been easily passed down as soon as the mistake was known, to prevent misunderstanding at the local levels. I wonder what is going to be the impression given to the members in poorer countries without knowledge of Stevenson's remarks (or a translation of them) and without regular internet access? Who will be taught this and led to believe it? It seems so negligent that it might even be intentional.

And the damage that this kind of negligence and silence can do is real.

Yes it is. You may have seen Ben Spackman’s blog entry about this; I think his first piece on inerrancy was discussed here, but he recently added a follow up where he said this:

First, this is not the first time I have seen de facto inerrancy. I hear it with some frequency.

.... I know first-hand accounts of junior faculty at BYU being rebuked by mid-level admins because “we’re not trying to disabuse students of their myths about Church leadership.”

(Sidenote, um, why not? Shouldn’t BYU, Institute, and Seminary be the ideal places to counteract false ideas and promote correct ones about the nature of Church leadership? Places of faith and intellect where we can tackle hard questions together, in constructive ways that build faith?)

.... Inerrancy is not to be written off as an arcane, academic concern, or irrelevant bit of pseudo-doctrine; its presence has real effects on real people...

https://benspackman.com/2020/01/31/iner ... -followup/

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I recall my mother saying something to the effect, "We should follow the prophet, but if he leads us astray, he'll be removed from the Earth."

Well. That's all good and fine for the prophet, but the damage done following a prophet who we are counselled to follow is done. The absolute devastation left behind by bad counsel echoes for decades, if not hundreds or thousands of years. Ben Spackman (thanks for linking him Lemmie, because I'd never heard of him prior to your post above) is in a tricky position discussing inerrancy because we're all kind of left with 'follow the prophet except when you think he's wrong, but you really should because you might be wrong' which essentially leads to a confusing 'yes, but no, but yes' kind of devotion by the flock.

And, honestly? All of this leads back to just following the prophets/apostles. Because, why would God risk leading you astray in the here and now?

I suppose this leaves us with the uncomfortable realization within the Mormon paradigm that God, in fact, did inspire His leaders to enact the policies and doctrines suitable to their times. He did curse people with dark skin. He did take away the priesthood from Black people. He did institute secret polygamy. He did practice a top-down autocratic theocracy reserved for family dynasties. He has, in fact, directed His church to be transformed into a real estate holdings company with a primary focus of accumulating hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth. He has, in fact, directed His church to openly discriminate against homosexuals, keep women subordinate to males, and to blur the line between His church and the state. So on and so forth.

How does the average member distinguish between His will and that of His servants? I say it's impossible.

- Doc

[_fetchface]

You fail to share their perspective on what is the higher benefit but frankly they did see one and would defend it in similar terms.

1. I have.
2. We're going in circles here.

[_kairos]

[quote="Doctor CamNC4Me"]I recall my mother saying something to the effect, "We should follow the prophet, but if he leads us astray, he'll be removed from the Earth."

Well. That's all good and fine for the prophet, but the damage done following a prophet who we are counselled to follow is done. The absolute devastation left behind by bad counsel echoes for decades, if not hundreds or thousands of years. Ben Spackman (thanks for linking him Lemmie, because I'd never heard of him prior to your post above) is in a tricky position discussing inerrancy because we're all kind of left with 'follow the prophet except when you think he's wrong, but you really should because you might be wrong' which essentially leads to a confusing 'yes, but no, but yes' kind of devotion by the flock.

And, honestly? All of this leads back to just following the prophets/apostles. Because, why would God risk leading you astray in the here and now?

I suppose this leaves us with the uncomfortable realization within the Mormon paradigm that God, in fact, did inspire His leaders to enact the policies and doctrines suitable to their times. He did curse people with dark skin. He did take away the priesthood from Black people. He did institute secret polygamy. He did practice a top-down autocratic theocracy reserved for family dynasties. He has, in fact, directed His church to be transformed into a real estate holdings company with a primary focus of accumulating hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth. He has, in fact, directed His church to openly discriminate against homosexuals, keep women subordinate to males, and to blur the line between His church and the state. So on and so forth.

How does the average member distinguish between His will and that of His servants? I say it's impossible.

Good insights above1

Are actions taken as a result of God's will always error free/inerrant? To my mind yes! Are those of God's servants error free/inerrant? To my mind no!

So take an issue "discrimination against homosexuals"- to my restricted mind, God is perfect and would/does not discriminate. So if church leaders like Hoax or Bedwetter or the church's magisterium , the teaching authority of the 15 Apostles in consultation together declare a policy,doctrine,proclamation, manifesto or whatever that openly discriminates against homosexuals, how is the member able to distinguish between the two "wills". Perhaps impossible if the member has been so "brainwashed" as to equate God's will with the church leaders . If not so brainwashed a member might question whether the church leaders' will conforms to God's. A member who is down or sliding down the rabbit hole might be able to conclude the church leaders will is in serious error.
So it all seems to depend on the member's state of mind in terms of how much he/she has linked concretely God's will and the church leaders' will as being the same.

just postulatin'
k

ps- above assumes God is perfect without error - your mileage on this obviously may vary!