Everything's on the table now

[Old-Timer]

It wasn't his opinion that it was his opinion. It might be your opinion. But it's a shady authority who calls what they claimed was "truth" to be "opinion", the moment it's proven false.

Or it is an example of someone who sincerely believed something and then, for some reason, realized it was not truth and merely an incorrect opinion.

Generally speaking, I place the vast majority of LDS Church leaders into that category and not "shady". I believe they believe what they teach, and I also believe they believe they receive revelation when they make changes, and I also believe they then believe differently than they believed previously.

That isn't really any different than what has happened to me both with regard to church-related issues and non-church-related issues. There are plenty of things I used to believe that I no longer believe - things that I once thought were truth but now see as my previous opinion. I hope that continues until the day I die. If I realize 20 years from now that my current truth did not change in any way, even important ways, over those two decades, I will be sorely disappointed.

The difference between me and most religious leaders is that I expect to have my beliefs change, while they don't. It is frustrating in a very real way, but I am glad that, by and large, those leaders are able to change their perceptions from truth to opinion - and, while sometimes it probably is shady, most of the time it simply is a change of belief.

[dande48]

Or it is an example of someone who sincerely believed something and then, for some reason, realized it was not truth and merely an incorrect opinion.

The main difference between them, and you or me, is that they claim authority, and use that authority to convince others of their correctness of what they taught. My wife might believe our kid has an ear infection, but she doesn't claim she "knows". A doctor, on the other hand, who is the "authority" on illness and infections, is expected to "know" whether our kid has an ear infection. If he were to claim he "knew", and it were later proven flase... I'd say that calls the doctor's authority into question. Enough mistakes, and the doctor will have their authority rescinded. My wife, on the other hand, would've just been using her best judgement, no matter how confident she was.

Updating your beliefs based on new evidence is one of the most admirable things a person can do. Continuing to make truth claims on the basis of authority, after former claims have proven false... that's what I find "shady".

[LookingHard]

I am with dande48 on this - and this is one of my main points pushing me away from the church.

When I hear the, "oh he was just speaking as a man" pushed over and over - eventually to me it feels like, "the prophet is just like any of us - just a man". The older I get the more examples I see of past prophets being countered with new prophetic sayings. I then have to think, "one of the strong tenets of the church is that they are led by a prophet of God. I look over my 1/2 century+ of life and consider how being in a church with a so-called God led prophet has helped me. At this point I actually am seeing more negative than positive. I think of the thousands of dollars I have spent on food storage that has just been thrown out as it spoiled. I should have had a good 72 hour kit and invested the money or even stuck it in my mattress. I think of how messed up I have been for decades with overwhelming shame for normal stuff. I see it nudging me to feel superior while holding on to homophobic and racists view way too long.

[SilentDawning]

I forgot to post this from last week. I was ruminating on the reasons why, as a progressive who's long been clamoring for changes like the recent sealing policy change, why is it that I'm suddenly freshly bothered when the changes occur.

Hawk -- this is exactly what I was going through in the One Year Waiting Period Discontinuation thread a while ago. Yes, I was happy they changed it, but it really ticked me off at the same time for all the reasons you gave. Until I dealt with it and reached equilibrium again.

Some here made comments like "so, you complain about this policy for years and when they change it, now you complain about the fact that they changed it! Nothing the church does will ever make you happy because you're just out to criticize!". Well, there are a host of reasons contribute to this backlash, even though its a welcome change.

You encapsulated all the reasons:

1. What else aren't they getting right?
2. After all the sacrifices I made, believing you were right, they just set it aside like that?
3. What about all my relationships that are in tatters as a result of the past policies I followed like a good soldier -- care to apologize?
4. What a dufus I was to be so callous and arrogant toward others over those policies that were ill-formed in the first place. Boy do I ever regret that.
5. How can I trust the church organization anymore? Time to get on my own clock about EVERYTHING, and I guess that means I feel less and less a part of this organization.

I want to add one more --

So, the one-year waiting period was fine when the only "cost" was to individual members family relationships, and not to the church institution as a whole. But now that the same-sex marriage agenda seems to be proliferating our society, this threatens the church. So, THAT motivates you to separate civil form temple marriages. How ego-centric of you and uncaring toward your membership!

It's kind of like growing up. As a kid, you think your parents and Santa Claus (the church) can do anything. They know it all. Then as you get adult brains and eyes, you see warts on your parents. Eventually, you learn what your parents are good at, and what they aren't. There is a period of massive deflation when you realize there is no Santa Claus. Only a fat guy in a white suit with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, trouble controlling his or her eating habits, sometimes bad advice, and a limited scope of expertise. But still possessing a certain amount of experience or benefits to you nonetheless. But nothing like what you thought he was prior to taking off the suit and seeing him for what he really is. Then you find you can make your own happiness, but keep the adult relationship within certain boundaries to stop it from disturbing your inner peace or encouraging you to make bad decisions.

It becomes a mixed bag.

One thing I know for sure -- when traditional believers get to the other side and IF they find there isn't one true church, or that all the sacrifices they made in this life were not necessary, you're going to have a lot of TICKED people in Zion.

Not saying that will happen, (and I still have some faith that our church is mostly what it says it is) but if this does happen on the other side, watch out for a wave of discontent and feelings. Feelings a lot like the ones I and others experienced over the discontinuation of the one-year waiting period policy.

[Roy]

1) I think the top leadership know and understand some things differently than the average member. For example, I believe that they understand that revelation even at the top is often more nuanced than some may suppose. I believe that they are intimately aware of some differences of opinion among some of the top officers and are privy to the discussions that help to shape policy and even doctrine at times.
2) I believe that top leadership also understands that they are playing a role as defenders of the faith. I assume that they are not to discuss details of whether or not they have seen Jesus lest they weaken the faith of those that feel such is a requirement for the office. I understand that once a decision is made it is the duty of each member of the quorum to present a united front. I understand that the Q15 are not to keep journals lest they later shed too much light on the inner workings.

Our church is a mixture of truth and error. We are largely man made and man directed - men following mostly their best judgement and most pure intentions - combined with that divine spark and lightning flashes of inspiration. In this we are very similar to many other churches.

[Old-Timer]

dande48, "shady" carries an obvious connotation of dishonesty. That is my only objection to using it in a case like this. I truly believe the leadership is not being dishonest.

[SilentDawning]

dande48, "shady" carries an obvious connotation of dishonesty. That is my only objection to using it in a case like this. I truly believe the leadership is not being dishonest.

In spite of my own issues over the years with the church, I've never believed the church leaders to be dishonest or shady. Although nothing surprises me anymore, we haven't had high profile financial scandals as in other "churches" that are there for the personal benefit of their leaders. Further, I believe the leaders at the top of our church are fundamentally good people.

At the same time, their faith can lead them to believe things that cause a certain arrogant approach toward policy. I believe confidence in the one true church concept can blind leaders and members alike to obvious warts in our religion that the original policy-maker couldn't see -- either due to personal weakness or the prevailing culture at the time.

So, at least they are changing stuff for the better.

[hawkgrrrl]

I do think arrogant is more apt than shady, but I get where dande48 is coming from. Psychologically, though, it is incredibly hard for anyone to truly internalize the feeling of being wrong because once we know we were wrong, we are "right" about having been wrong in the past. We never know what it feels like to BE wrong.

[LookingHard]

I do think arrogant is more apt than shady, but I get where dande48 is coming from. Psychologically, though, it is incredibly hard for anyone to truly internalize the feeling of being wrong because once we know we were wrong, we are "right" about having been wrong in the past. We never know what it feels like to BE wrong.

Wise words from a female superhero.

[dande48]

dande48, "shady" carries an obvious connotation of dishonesty. That is my only objection to using it in a case like this. I truly believe the leadership is not being dishonest.

A doctor who misdiagnoses or mistreats usually isn't being "dishonest" either. I strongly believe the prophets and Church leaders are being honest and have the best of intentions when presenting "revelation". If there are mistakes, they are honest mistakes. But when it's brought to light, that what you said under authority was false, and you seek to "cover it up", that is what I call both "dishonest" and "shady".

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.