Brigham Young:
“ But, he cautioned, “do not come to my office to ask me whether I am mistaken, for I want to tell you now perhaps I am.”
“I will acknowledge that all the time,” he elaborated, “but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray.”
Rather, “accord-[p.xii]ing to the best light and intelligence we are in possession of we will tell you what we think the Lord wishes of us and his policy concerning this people.””
What is interesting about what is said there is the clear assertion that he believed that he was often mistaken, enough that he felt comfortable acknowledging it in advance.
Instead of saying he was always right he was stating that he was doing the best he could, in light of what he knew and understood. He acknowledged he could be wrong and often was wrong.
In considering what he said, how often do we acknowledge that we might be wrong on something? That our understanding might be incomplete or only partial?
(You can think of parables as an exercise in learning from incomplete and misunderstood information).
Would we be better off if we acknowledged that we knew and understood far less than 100% — and if we treated what we were taught, and what we taught others as incomplete, subject to revision and an expression not of absolutes but of our best understanding under the circumstances and our limitations?
I was thinking about it when reading older writings by church leaders about how they lacked all truth and how we and they would benefit if we studied other groups and learned from their truths and brought them home again.
(It is not just the Church that has discussed mistakes, irony and learning from outside).
It also came up as I was reading more about Joseph Smith and his injunction to learn more from others and out of the best books and his explanation that he was doing his best to do that (something reflected in the JST where there were multiple authors of the JST and they used the “best books” to improve their understanding).
- Are we ready for that level of humility?
- To start from the proposition that we are probably wrong and our understanding incomplete?
- Do we have good reason not to be that humble?
- What truths should we be learning from other groups?
- What about what we should learn from the “best books”?
- What truths have we learned in the past from the outside?
Wheat & Tares 
There is a strange formatting glitch I haven’t been able to fix yet.
My apologies.
I met with my stake president a couple years ago when I was first going through the initial stages of a faith crisis. He told me I was just being prideful and needed to be more humble and to just keep having faith. I replied that I felt lost and for the first time in my life I was willing to admit that I didn’t know anything and was humble enough to truly seek out answers, wherever that search may lead. I asked him if it’s not also prideful to assume that you already have the truth so there’s no need to ask questions. He didn’t like that response.
I feel like some degree of epistemic humility is necessary for growth.
The editing of Young’s remarks makes this a stronger acknowledgement of fallibility than he actually made.
If I’m remembering correctly, eons ago, the Relief Society curriculum actually included learning/reading the classics—“the best books.” and learning about cultures? ( I have this vague memory of my mom’s RS manuals being very different)?
Doubting Tom
I received the same response when I tried to share my struggles. (I wanted to reply, hey, I’m the first to admit I don’t know everything—you, on the other hand, are so sure you know all the answers as well as assuming you know all the questions—but I didn’t).
While some members will admit (we and) our leaders are fallible, we can’t entertain any discussion or possibility of actual mistakes or errors or lack of knowledge or experience or judgement.
I just switch from to this from reading https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/world/europe/pope-nuns-sexual-abuse.html The article’s title is, “Pope Acknowledges Nuns Were Sexually Abused by Priests and Bishops” and as I read it I recall that this pope actually washed the feet of some prisoners. I felt some real holy envy. Then I switched to this. I have to say I am less interested in what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said/did than what has gone on in my lifetime.
I have just read James Comey’s biography A Higher Loyalty. Much of it is about leadership, and then Trump. He attributes a lack of security for Trumps inability to see his own mistakes, or apol9gise.
So much of what he says applies to church leaders, and not in a good way.
Maybee thats how members can vote for Trump?
In light of Doubting Toms comment above (thanks for that..!!), this discussion is interesting in the context of faith crises.
My wife and I were met with responses from our local leadership that looked nothing like humility. Interestingly, their advice to us (just read, just pray, just stop asking questions, just don’t speak to anyone about these issues) did not instil anything in us that would have allowed us to display humility either.
Our experience is not unique but humility is not found in threatening disciplinary action and silencing people who are genuinely responding to issues of church history and cover up.
It’s correlational, I know, but when the narrative could be easily controlled, we see lots of quotes from church leaders about the membership not following blindly and being driven by conscience. When availability of information is now a smartphone away, we are being told not to research, just stay in the boat and to doubt [our] doubts.
It is disheartening to hear the reaction of leaders interacting with DoubtingTom, Lois, and LDS_Aussie when they expressed doubts. My wife had a different experience with our stake president. He acknowledged how certain issues can be problematic but more importantly he did not gaslight her for her feelings or perspective. We suspect part of his empathy stemmed from his own family situation. The stake president disclosed he and his wife had decided to just “not go there” on certain church subjects, implying his awareness of the worms in that can. In the end my wife did leave the church but she is appreciative of this leader’s humility.
Initially, when my wife’s questions started to become problematic for her, I had no humility when it came to my firm grasp that the “church was true” and every concern could be resolved by “proper” prayer and scripture study. I thought she was looking beyond the mark and missing answers that Heavenly Father was surely giving her. It was a source of friction in our marriage. Over time I started to just listen and not try to respond with the “right view”. Just listen. It was then I started to understand her position and even emphasize with it. By the time she left the church I fully supported her. She is much better off.
My new perspective (borne of some humility?), however, did not come without soul searching on my part. A month ago, I followed my wife out of the church. For this reason, I can see it problematic for the church to encourage its leaders to be more empathetic/humble when working with members and their doubts.
“ A month ago, I followed my wife out of the church. For this reason, I can see it problematic for the church to encourage its leaders to be more empathetic/humble “
But how many people leave because they only encounter unsympathetic , judgmental, rigid leaders? Because they feel isolated and alone?
Lois – don’t get me wrong that my wife didn’t experience judgement and unsympathetic leaders. My example of the stake president was to show it is possible to better handle such situations. Unfortunately it was more of a one-off. She never did tell the bishop of her concerns, mainly because he couldn’t keep confidences, but also because his mindset was if one has doubts, one hasn’t tried hard enough.
I’m loving this from an unnamed Zen master. ‘Great doubt, great enlightenment. Little doubt, little enlightenment. No doubt, no enlightenment’.
For my part, I’m convinced that God is cosmically beyond our definition, and most of what we encounter as descriptive of Him is metaphorical. I live in awe, and curiosity.
Several mention not getting answers to spiritual questions from stake presidents. I’ve also had that experience but then I don’t expect spiritual answers from stake presidents — that’s not (IMO) their job! They are more like regional managers of a corporation and need to think that way.
The stake Patriarch *might* be a resource of spirituality but in my opinion there’s no predicting who knows your doubt and your situation best; other than God and the angels of course, and the enemy of God.
Important answers may well come from purely secular sources BUT brought to your attention by the spirit of God, or made to see a connection. I’m reminded of “Lady in the Water” where the3 boy gets spiritual messages reading labels on cereal boxes. I have gotten important insight reading some science fiction where by luck or coincidence the author has written a story that exactly resonates with my situation, and then in the story reveals some important answer.