Two assumptions that I’m assuming believing members will agree on:

  1. Church leaders are fallible on an individual level.
  2. Sometimes church leaders teach or opine but it is just their opinion.

My questions, which are similar (and thus suffering from multicollinearity, just like the assumptions above):

  • Do the “majority of the Twelve” or whatever standard by which you might judge whether or not something is “Doctrine,” ever get something wrong or partially wrong that needs to be corrected by new revelation?
  • Is the only purpose of revelation to add new knowledge that cannot contradict past teachings? Or can current revelation correct past error of the church?
  • Did the Restoration make everything in the church right, upon which foundation we are building?
  • Or, did the Restoration establish the beginning of the church in the Latter-days, and now the church is growing and evolving, and still weeding out false or imperfect doctrines or practices?

It seems to me, that there are at least two camps here in the church. One group says that new revelation only adds upon the old (or is for new teachings for different time periods), while another group says that even the church as a whole can get things wrong, and that is one of the reasons why we have ongoing revelation.

Please discuss. I seem to be getting into many debates underneath which there is this theme. What are the ramifications of each view? Strong points? Weak points? What drives people to take one view or the other? What are some other (that I have not listed here) ways of looking at it?

While I generally take the view that the church even in matters of doctrine is still open to pruning away false doctrine, or evolving and growing not just on an individual level, that view, I’ve been told is filled with fallacies and not as logically sound as the more orthodox view, which suggests that the Bretheren will “never lead you astray,” i.e. individual leaders may make mistakes but never the church as a whole.

Which view do you have? Which is more logical? Are your answers to those questions the same? Mine are not – it seems to me that the more fundamentalist your view is (whether a theist or an atheist) the better arguments you have. Is that correct?