Do you think the systems we live in are fundamentally and irredeemably broken, in need of completely being torn down and replaced, or do you believe they need to be maintained, reformed, audited, and/or tinkered with? I’m going to imagine that for most of us it depends on the system in question. Brokenism suggests that incremental policy changes are insufficient and that more transformational changes are needed to restore functionality and public trust. Here are the key principles of brokenism:
- Systemic Dysfunction: Brokenists argue that government institutions don’t just need minor fixes but suffer from deep structural flaws (e.g., bureaucracy, inefficiency, corruption).
- Loss of Public Trust: Many people feel the government is unresponsive, slow, or controlled by special interests, leading to demands for drastic reform.
- Polarization & Gridlock: Traditional governance struggles with partisan conflicts, making meaningful progress difficult.
- Technological Lag: Governments often fail to keep up with modern innovations, leading to outdated policies.
The most vital debate in America today is between those who believe there is something fundamentally broken in America, and that it’s an emergency, and those who do not. – Alana Newhouse, in the Jewish online magazine Tablet
Unlike most contemporary politics, this is not a right vs. left debate. For example, here are a few things I can think of where I have heard strong arguments from the left that are “brokenist” arguments: defund the police, end capitalism, and get rid of the electoral college. I think a reasonable brokenist argument could be made about many systems or organizations. For example, how do you actually get rid of the problems of systemic racism and sexism while still maintaining those systems? We’ve been at it for a long time, and it’s still pretty entrenched, right?
I don’t really want to get into the debate of what the right is actually allowing Musk and Trump to do right now which is under the guise of a brokenist argument that in fact many on the right believe about various arms of the government–perhaps they are right about the brokenist argument in some cases (even if that’s not really what is happening). Perhaps they are wrong or being misinformed about actual corruption and fraud. But at the end of the day, these institutions are being dismantled and will not exist in recognizable form at the end of Trump’s term. So what comes next?
The main critique of brokenism is that the overhauls can be risky and lead to unintended consequences, things Janey did a great job outlining in her post last Friday. Companies pollute the water, and people die. Banks fail or steal from consumers, and there are no watchdogs or consequences. Diseases rampage through the population, and nobody does research to prevent them or even report on them when these systems no longer exist. Incremental progress may feel insufficient, but it is more stable than tearing down institutions completely. When government ceases to exist to protect the citizens, the ones who are taking advantage of the public are the winners. Another criticism of brokenism is that political resistance can make sweeping reform difficult. Different people see different solutions.
“Zero-notice shutting down entire divisions in the most arbitrary and capricious way possible, based on the judgements of teen interns, is so many fathoms beneath the dignity of a medium sized company, let alone the world’s greatest democracy, even before we get to the illegal aspect of it.”
Some of the problems to be on the lookout for in brokenism:
- Over-simplification of problems. Brokenism frames issues as entirely dysfunctional, overlooking where systems still work and can be improved. Some failures are due to mismanagement, not inherent flaws.
- Risk of unproven solutions. Tearing down systems can mean replacing them with even worse systems that aren’t well thought out. No system is perfect. Every system has flaws. As Kissinger said, “Every solution is a ticket to a new problem.”
- Social upheaval. The constant refrain that the “system is broken” leads to polarization and cynicism as well as radicalization. Demagogues can exploit this cynicism to justify authoritarian takeovers and to dismantle institutions for their personal gain.
- Public disillusionment. This narrative can lead to fatalistic attitudes and apathy or learned helplessness among citizens, feeling that nothing they do matters.
- Undoing hard won progress. Brokenism can undo decades of generational progress that happened incrementally, including civil rights, diplomatic relations, and economic regulation.
Regardless of how you feel about the systems that are currently being torn down, the question remains what will replace them. Will these systems be better than what exists today that was the product of decades of work to create?
When we look at reforms in the Church, I’ve previously had this discussion with some others. In the metaphor of a broken down house with a leaky roof, is the Church as it exists something that can be reformed or is it better to move to Canada and renounce one’s citizenship (metaphorically speaking)? Even if the house is broken down and has a leaky roof, one’s perspective on that probably depends on which part of the house you live in, what the weather is like, and what your practical alternatives are. Some of the changes Nelson/Oaks have made feel like tinkering reforms, but others feel like brokenism. I suppose it depends on how you feel about those reforms. My proposal that instead of ordaining women, we should “unordain men” is arguably a brokenist idea.
- Are you a brokenist or an incrementalist? Regarding which issues or systems?
- Regarding the church, do you think brokenism applies? If so, to what aspects?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Given the choice of brokenism or incrementalism, I suppose I tend to choose incrementalism both for government and church.
Regarding the church, I fear those who want to destroy or tear down, and prefer to think of building up and sustaining. I am leery of those who like to point the finger and wag the lip for the purpose of mocking or tearing down — but I am also concerned about any whited sepulchers or hypocrites among us. That said, I wish our church culture would allow us to talk more without fear.
Regarding the nation, I am dismayed by the polarization in our politics, and how both sides disparage the other. Biden and the Democrats may have said some unkind things about Republicans, but they accepted Republicans as fellow Americans and attempted to govern fairly — in contrast, Trump and the Republicans seem to hate their Democratic neighbors, and I see this as unkind, uncharitable, and un-American. I am afraid for the safety of our Republic and our Constitution, as I do not trust Trump or Musk and I am dismayed by the fealty that most or almost all Republicans have sworn to him essentially as their Führer. I hope we survive until we have elections again in 2026 and 2028.
I think the Exponent II has talked little about how sometimes fire can be cleansing—that it can remove something so that something else better takes its place. I get that, but if you do that with everything, we have nothing. And that presupposes we have builders in our midst willing to do the hard work of building something. I subscribe a little bit to the idea that something’s need to go away and get replaced, but I think most of the time, we just have to make what we currently have better.
That all being said, one of core aspects of Christianity as a whole that I think plays right into the hand of brokenism is that the whole religion is founded on the idea that we are fundamentally broken. So broken in fact that we are incapable of fixing it ourselves and need a savior. This plays right into the mindset of brokenism—“oh well, Jesus will come and fix it.” When Biden got elected—Jesus was for sure coming—because, honestly, how can a Trump fanatic be expected to interact with people who believe differently or believe that others also want good things? So I think part of this “burn it down” comes from some truly broken parts, but another big part comes from people abdicating their responsibility to engage in the world because a god they believe in is going to come and burn it down anyways. Turns out that when your theology is a steady stream of junk food, excess adipose makes it hard to get up and do thing.
I’m pretty sure I’m more of an incremental person. That’s what I do in my personal life and that’s what I try to advocate both politically and with the Church.
That said, I’ve wondered why, and I think it’s because, as I’ve studied history, whenever a nation is broken and falls apart, there is a period with a power vacuum before it’s rebuilt. Sometimes, the problem can be fixed, but many times, it’s just reordered or even institutionalized. Also the reason a country gets broken is always much more complicated than what it appears at first.
Take our country, for instance. What was the reason for the revolution? It is an example of a broken power vacuum and reorganization altogether. People say it was because of “Taxation without representation,” but was it? There was a divide between the North and South with the issues of slavery, classism, urban and rural, manufacturing and farming, and big and small colonies. After the revolution there was the Articles of Confederation, the power vacuum, where there was an effort for states to be equal but that fell apart quickly because of the need to pay debts and face common enemies left over from the revolution, so the constitution was written which didn’t really solve any of the other problems but did give some structure to them to push them down the road a bit.
The Civil War was another example of a broken society when, upon reorganization, after a power vacuum, was replaced by a system we now call Jim Crow, which institutionalized race relations and servitude, either through incarceration, low wages, redlining, or legal discrimination.
Since then, there have been periods of incremental change starting with the Progressive Era and Teddy Roosevelt, a second progressive era with Franklin Roosevelt, a third period called the Civil Rights Era, and a chipping away since then of those civil rights gained. The overarching issue during all of these periods has been, is this a land of equality for all, or are we a land of Christian values where some are entitled to receive the blessing of full citizenship and others are regulated second-class status.
As an aside, I thought it was interesting during the halftime show this past weekend that Kendrick Lamar depicted the American Flag as both disjointed with the colors in the right place but also the colors on the backs of black men. Without going into a lot of commentary on that, let me just say that at the time of the Civil War, the economic value of the institution of slavery in the South was worth more than all the manufacturing in the North, much of which got its raw materials from the production of slaves.
This brings me to today. We are a country that is facing a crisis. Are we broken, or can it be fixed with incremental change? I believe that the last month, the first month of Trump’s presidency, shows that Republicans think it’s broken and they are perfectly willing to break it all down to replace it with a society that is ruled by White Christian Nationals with clear enemies of the people who have no protection. As evidence you can look at the push to get rid of DEI, Transgenders, “wasteful” spending (but always on something to do with helping our country be more “equal), and the overlooking of Constitutional authority or practice with Elon Musk’s DOGE. There is starting to be pushback, but no one knows where that’s going to go. What if Trump refuses to listen to the Courts and Congress refuses to act? Will there be another election where we can go back to incremental change, or will we have to risk it all in a broken society, enduring the power vacuum and hoping on the other side we’ve solved the problems that started it all in the first place? Which we haven’t been able to do in 400 years since 1600-1619.
As for the Church, it reflects society. I doubt it will ever look at itself as broken because there is a living prophet at the head but it probably is broken because so many people are leaving the church these past few years because of the church’s inability to deal with “modern” issues or its embrace of the MAGA rhetoric by so many members. There’s also not a mechanism to even talk about it in the church, so, how can we expect change?
Jacob 5:65-66 seems to describe an incrementalist approach.
The renowned investor Charlie Munger said, “Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome.” Evidence that a system is broken is seen in the outcomes. The reasons why the system is broken is understood by examining the incentives.
For government, the misalignment of incentives and outcomes is so obvious. It is that government gets rewarded for spending money on problems, and not for fixing problems. Homelessness? Government funding increases when homelessness increases! The proper incentive would be to reward government when homelessness declines. Alas, the great challenge is if a problem is not a problem then why spend money on it? People tend to have short attention spans and they forget the wisdom that it is better to prevent problems rather than allowing them to grow until they become difficult.
As for the church, the incentive / priority of the church leadership is to have an efficient, franchise system that can be deployed anywhere in the world and allow branches and wards to function. That is not a bad incentive. But it invites decisions and policies that create a sterile church that lacks energy and vitality. It robs local branches and wards of autonomy and it invites a top-heavy bureaucracy that yields arbitrary decision making and the abuse of authority.
I think both the American Federal government and the LDS church are savable. I believe it is just a matter of fixing incentives. The tough part is getting those who benefit from existing incentives to change. For the Federal government, the existing incentives are money, and money is a very powerful force. We are witnessing the pain of money flows turning off. But here is the thing and it is all I want to say about current political events: For all my life politicians have talked about stopping the waste of government spending and reducing the debt and deficit. So much talk and nothing changed! In fact the debt and deficits have grown exponentially! And now we might actually have change. If you think there was a better way to do this, how? This seems to be a classic case of pulling the band-aid. All the talk in the world doesn’t work if one doesn’t want to endure the pain of pulling the band-aid.
For the LDS church the answer is to return to the proper church government where stakes have autonomy from the corporate office. Tithes and donations need to also stay in the region where they are collected. The corporate office of the LDS church should be much smaller and regions of the church should be much more independent and self sufficient. But how to fix this incentive? It would only take a First Presidency that understood the need for this change. However, such a change will never happen without a First Presidency wanting to make this change. And I do believe there are strong political forces in church headquarters that adamantly oppose relinquishing their control of money and authority, which is why it will take the force of a First President to make the change.
Ironically, Hawkgrrrl, your post frames the LDS Restoration narrative: Can Christianity be reformed? Yes, say Protestants. No, say LDS, can’t be reformed. It’s completely broken. We need a Restoration!
I’m only 90% against the Elon Musk initiative to burn it all down. Private sector corporations do, from time to time, close or sell off an underperforming or simply dying division or company. Entire corporations likewise go bankrupt and newer startups grow and prosper. But with governments, new departments or initiatives are formed and funded, but nothing ever gets pared down or closed. Budgets grow slowly or they grow quickly, but they always grow. So closing down a few areas may not be a bad thing. They’ll be back at some point, and maybe a fresh start will be positive.
What nobody seems to be asking is where will the “saved” money go? Three options: (1) return it to the taxpayers; (2) send it to the states that are going to pick up some of the terminated functions; or (3) use the “savings” to fund tax cuts for oligarchs. Three guesses what Musk wants to do with the money.
Having spent my career analyzing incremental policies, I would have been quite happy seeing that continue. Those who lived through the Great Depression and WWII knew where the brokenist approach leads. In response, they slowly built the most prosperous society the world has ever known. Sure, we still hadn’t squeezed all the racism, sexism and poverty out of the system, but it really looked like the arc of history might actually be bending toward justice. I have always been aware of the brokenists who think the arc is bending too slowly. But I never imagined that the winning brokenists would be the ones who think it is bending in the wrong direction altogether. Neither the billionaires nor the MAGA faithful (whose goals are very different from one another) are going to rebuild something that I would find tolerable. My only hope is that they break things so quickly and painfully that we can arouse an effective nonviolent resistance in the next two years. If we fail, things are going to get very very ugly.
I know I’m a broken record here talking about prophetic infallibility, but I believe that the Church will be fundamentally broken until the it truly frees itself from ideas like “when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done”, “the prophet can never lead the Church astray”, etc. The idea that all Church leaders, especially top Church leaders, are receiving a constant stream of revelation directly from God, so Church membership simply needs to shut up and always “follow the prophet” has been slowly rotting the Church for many decades. The Church’s failures with polygamy, the black priesthood/temple ban, treating women as second class citizens, marginalization of LGBTQ people, rejection of science (age of earth, evolution, etc.), hoarding of wealth, lack of transparency with sensitive Church history topics, etc. are all symptoms of the same disease: an insistence that the Church institution and its leadership and Jesus Christ are one and the same thing. Kevin Hamilton (a Seventy) taught this exact thing to BYU students just 2 years ago:
I think that it is possible for the Church to incrementally back away from the idea of prophetic infallibility. The Q15 could agree to do it, and the Church could slowly ease away from this destructive idea. For example, the Church could update its essay on the black priesthood/temple ban to clearly state it was Brigham’s fault and let that sink in for a year or two. Next, the Church could decanonize D&C 132, which would imply that Joseph screwed up in claiming it as a “revelation”, as did all of the subsequent prophets who let it stand. They could then let this sink in for awhile while Church members came to grips with the reality that the Q15, including Brigham and Joseph, have seriously screwed up in the past and the obvious implications of this reality for current Church leadership. Church leaders could then at some point create an official mechanism for members to make complaints or calls for reform, and Church leaders would be required to consider these requests (or at least the most common requests) and make an official response within a reasonable amount of time. Church leaders could then admit that the Family Proclamation was not a revelation from God, has virtually no scriptural basis, and is based purely on their views of “tradition” at the time of its writing, and it is therefore “disavowed”, clearing the way for LGBTQ individuals to fully participate in the Church. Church leaders could then admit that they have actually received zero revelation regarding women and the priesthood, so in the absence of direction from God, the obvious, default thing to do is to put women on equal footing as men in the Church and allow them to be ordained to the priesthood and hold the same leadership positions as men. Standing committees made of some number of “ordinary” Church members could be formed that had a gradually increasing amount of power to make policy, and eventually doctrinal, changes. All of this could potentially be done incrementally over the course of many years, until the Church was no longer a top-down authoritarian organization run by leaders that rarely, if ever, receive any more revelation from God than an average Church member. The Church could be gradually transformed in this manner into an organization in which important changes originated at the grassroots level “by common consent”, and Church leadership were mere administrators obliged to follow the inspiration of the general Church body. It’s a massive transformation, but it could be done incrementally over many years.
However, I just don’t think this change is likely to happen any time soon. Current Church leadership seems to believe that they are receiving revelation from God and that God wants the authoritarian, top-down “kingdom of God” leadership model that is currently in place. Furthermore, when a member of the Q15 dies, they are quickly replaced by a younger man who has proven himself to think and act very much like the remaining Q15 members, so there is very little chance of a change in direction. Because of this, I feel like the Church is truly broken. Unfortunately, it will probably never be fixed–at least not any time soon–because there is no way for Church membership to oust the Q15. The most powerful thing a member can do is “vote with their feet” and walk away, but there seem to be enough members who just love the idea of following “infallible”, authoritarian Church leaders that the Church will continue to survive in its current state for years to come.
mountainclimber479,
The “primitive” church was destroyed when those who were against it removed all apostolic authority. The same would happen today if that authority were to be watered down through the ranks of the church. There are important reasons as to why the Savior personally chose his apostles and then placed the burden of leading and directing the Kingdom upon their shoulders.
@Jack, you said:
I will openly admit that I simply do not believe that the Savior personally chooses each and every modern apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. I cited sufficient examples where the Church has suffered in the past and is suffering today due to what I believe to be serious errors made by “modern apostles” to make my case, but there are many, many other examples that can be given. New “apostles” are chosen by the old “apostles”, and the main criterion for becoming a new apostle seem to be how well the old apostles know, like, and agree with a potential new apostle. Just look at how many conservative white men, mainly businessmen and lawyers with strong family Church connections, have been called to be apostles over the years. It doesn’t seem like Christ has much to do with choosing apostles at all. The Church likely would be much more Christlike had its authority been “watered down through the ranks of the church”, and when it comes down to it, I’d much prefer a Christlike church over a church that claims what I have come be believe is false “apostolic authority”.
I understand that one of the key differentiators of the Church that appeals to many is its claim to be the only Church on the earth that has prophets and apostles personally chosen by Christ. If that claim were true, then that truly would be remarkable. There was a time when I believed that was true, and it really was very comforting to me. I obviously now believe very differently. As I said in my previous comment,
However, because of my change in belief, I now feel strongly that the best hope for the Church is acknowledging that the flow of revelation to apostles doesn’t really happen as frequently claimed/believed in the Church today. Therefore, a new governance structure that involves more rank-and-file members is needed. There are still a lot of good things in Mormon doctrine, culture, and its membership to be worth potentially preserving, but a top-down, authoritarian form of governance has been demonstrated to be a failure and needs to be replaced. The term “Mormon” could come to be synonymous with “More Good” around the world, but that unfortunately doesn’t seem likely to happen with the current authoritarian structure of the Church. Instead, our apostles are trying to run from the title of “Mormon” at least partly because it became synonymous with polygamy, racism, sexism, bigotry, greed, sexual abuse, etc., yet it is the un-Christlike leadership of these very apostles that created these negative impressions of the Church in the first place.
By the way, the idea of the “Great Apostasy”, at least as I was taught it growing up as a Mormon appears to have also been yet another false narrative fed to Church membership by “apostles”. I’d recommend starting with a book like “Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-Day Saints” (https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Christians-Introduction-Latter-day-Saints/dp/0842500928) for a more accurate depiction of the early days of Christianity written by faithful LDS scholars. Your whole idea of the “Great Apostasy” as an event (or series of events) where the “primitive church was destroyed when those who were against it removed all apostolic authority” is almost certainly not historically accurate.
In the US and other OECD countries, I think that brokenism is deeply and even dangerously cynically. I think that we are currently facing a huge setback with Trump and his band of criminal cronies in power. That said, I hold out hope that things can be turned around. Brokenism has long been the philosophy of the nihilistic wing of the conservative echosphere. And it is the philosophy that they have invoked to destroy the system, which they are attempting to do.
As for the church, it works for some people and some purposes. But it mostly isn’t for me. And it won’t make the adjustments that I would like to see it make.
“…the Savior personally chose his apostles…”
Well, he did choose the first twelve, back in New Testament days — but he didn’t choose the thirteenth apostle (the replacement for Judas Iscariot). In our modern era, he didn’t choose any — the Three Witnesses chose the first twelve apostles.
At least, that is what my reading of our scripture tells me.
I think maybe D&C 88:51-61 plays here.
“My proposal that instead of ordaining women, we should “unordain men” is arguably a brokenist idea.”
This is the best idea I’ve heard yet! I guess that makes me a brokenist when it comes to the Corporation of the church!
I do see it needing a complete overhaul, if it’s fixable at all!!
moutainclimber479:
“I will openly admit that I simply do not believe that the Savior personally chooses each and every modern apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today.”
As ji clarified, the Savior personally chose the original twelve. Even so, the point I’m driving at is–the fact that the meridian church was led by those whom the Lord chose personally–the apostles–speaks volumes (IMO) as to the pattern of leadership that we should expect to see in his church today.
“Just look at how many conservative white men, mainly businessmen and lawyers with strong family Church connections, have been called to be apostles over the years. It doesn’t seem like Christ has much to do with choosing apostles at all.”
One might argue in the same vein that the Savior only chose–with the exception of Judas–Jewish Galilean men as his apostles. There was far less diversity among the first Quorum of the Twelve than there is among the current Twelve.
“I understand that one of the key differentiators of the Church that appeals to many is its claim to be the only Church on the earth that has prophets and apostles personally chosen by Christ.”
Yes, I believe the modern apostles to be chosen by the Lord as well–but it is typically by means of the spirit of revelation and prophecy. That said, I think you already know what I would say with regard to how might know that the apostles are the Lord’s anointed. And I would add that the idea of apostolic authority being imperative as a primary principle of governance in the Lord’s Kingdom is clearly scriptural.
“. . . a top-down, authoritarian form of governance has been demonstrated to be a failure and needs to be replaced.”
I think this is a highly subjective statement–and I’m OK with you having such an opinion. We just need to recognize it for what it is–because there are a lot of folks–like myself–who believe that the basic structure of the church is excellent. For my own part, I see the “top down” element of the church as a reflection of the fact that the church is a priesthood organization. It is a system of governance wherein presiding high priests stand in the place of the Savior (as per Alma 13) over their respective stewardships. And so, if there is any flaw it is not in the system–but rather in the men who are chosen to govern. But even so, it is our responsibility to accept them and support them as the Lord’s anointed even in their weakness–except in the case of serious sin on their part. And it is their responsibility to govern as best they can as the Savior would if he were standing in their place.
“Instead, our apostles are trying to run from the title of “Mormon” at least partly because it became synonymous with polygamy, racism, sexism, bigotry, greed, sexual abuse, etc.”
There may be right–but I think the primary reason for the shift is because of 1) the expansion of the global church and 2) the West’s turn towards agnosticism. I can imagine the church one day being the flagship for all who believe in a literal Jesus.
“. . . yet it is the un-Christlike leadership of these very apostles that created these negative impressions of the Church in the first place.”
Again, this is a very subjective statement–and I could defend (to my satisfaction at least) each point of disagreement in a lively tit-for-tat discussion with you. But I think we’ve already done enough of that to know that neither one of us is likely to be moved. It should be enough to know (IMO) that there are good reasons to argue *for* as well as against the decisions made by past and present leaders of the church.
“By the way, the idea of the “Great Apostasy”, at least as I was taught it growing up as a Mormon appears to have also been yet another false narrative fed to Church membership by “apostles”.”
I agree that new light has been shed on the idea–but I think it has to do more with the apostasy looks like than with whether or not it actually happened. Count me in with the camp that believes there was an actual “falling away.” And that the primary reason for it was the loss of apostolic authority.
Jack: I don’t think there’s anyone here who doesn’t understand the justification for the restoration; the topic is whether or not this was brokenism, and I think you & mountainclimber agree that it basically was. However, your assertion that the Savior personally chose / placed burden of leading & directing the kingdom on the shoulders of the apostles isn’t really supported by the New Testament, or at least the text is enigmatic (depending on your definition of “the kingdom” which is either “among you” or coming imminently). Jesus preached the latter, but those who like to imagine he set up a church prefer to preach the former (the text shows Paul doing this, not Jesus–although the BOM shows Jesus doing it in the new world). I guess the argument could be whether Jesus was a brokenist or not. He preached apocalypticism, that the end was about to happen. When he was crucified and the end didn’t come, his teachings had to be reframed to be understood in a world where things didn’t end. But that’s about the extent of that argument. Some have said he was more incrementalist about the Jewish law, for example, not trying to preach to non-Jews which really just became a thing thanks to Paul.
Dave B: Regarding returning the “savings” to the tax payers, I don’t know if you saw that Musk wanted the remaining $770M from the CPFB budget returned to the “people.” Congrats, MAGA voters. You just sold our consumer protections for $2. Don’t spend it all in one place. Meanwhile, Musk is rolling forward with his design to make X a payments platform now that the pesky regulatory agencies who might prevent him from defrauding people are being shut down. And the best thing is that he’s been given the power to say whether or not he has a conflict of interest, just like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito get to! Plus, they’ve eliminated the agency that prevents companies from paying bribes to get contracts which means contracts, foreign and domestic, will now go to the highest bidder and there’s nothing preventing that. Given that Trump previously found this anti-bribery law frustrating in his own business endeavors, I think we can see where the bread is buttered. And yet, my MAGA voting FB friends all think this is fantastic, just look at all the “fraud” they are rooting out. I’m sure there will be some fraud rooted out, accidentally. After all, if your house has a mouse in the attic, one way to get rid of it is to burn down the house.
Hawkgrrrl,
Yeah–we have to rely on the restoration scriptures to get a clear view of how the Savior places the apostles at the head of the church. It’s there in the New Testament if we know what we’re looking for–as in Revelation 12–but not presented in explicit terms.
Re: the Savior as brokenist or incrementalist: I think the restoration is a good example of how he is both. It starts off with a bang to get the ball rolling and then slows up a bit making small course corrections along the way. That’s kind of the exodus pattern in a nutshell–lot’s of activity and fireworks at the outset. And then the long trek through the wilderness with little change in the scenery or the diet–our daily ration of manna.
I’m fundamentally an incrementalist. There are probably situations in the world where brokenism is an accurate assessment, but I think it’s a lot rarer than people assume. And furthermore, it turns out that dismantling even the most broken systems always causes a lot of pain and disruption. We have to be really cautious about what we want to tear apart and really consider all of the consequences. I would say the USSR was a fundamentally broken system of government by the time it collapsed, and I think it was necessary to dismantle it, and yet I witnessed a lot of human misery as a missionary in Ukraine during its first 2 years as a new independent country. Anyone who lived through that period would laugh at complaints about 9% inflation. How many violent revolutions in the last century have led to a durable new order that was better than the old? I’d say it’s a small minority.
When it comes to the church, I think I’m also largely an incrementalist. There are things that are fundamentally broken and unrepairable, and patriarchy is one of them. And yet I don’t see a path to change other than changing hearts and minds one at a time. I look to the Community of Christ as a model of what can be achieved over a half century or so with concerted effort. They were once not so different from us, and look where they are now.
mountainclimber479,
I think you are right on the money about what is needed at church. We need to fully accept the fallibility of prophetic teachings, and step up in our following of personal revelation instead of leaning on institutional authority in all our understandings and decisions. If we did this we would be following the examples of both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith who questioned the institutional authorities of their time, and depended on their own personal spiritual authority as they moved forward.
Right now the church faces the crises of so many members learning about current scandals (Ensign peak, SEC, covering up for pedophiles) or learning more about actual church history instead of the faithful narrative, and feeling betrayed as they learn that the church knew they were teaching false narratives at church, and those members leaving the church. The church set us up for a crisis of trust with the inaccurate true or false narrative, and hiding the ways leaders have made mistakes in order to give the impression the church matches that narrative. The day has come that everyone can know the church’s errors and secrets. They can cover it up no longer if people simply are brave enough to look.
The only answer for the church is to follow their own advice at long last. Repent of dishonesty and deception. Be accountable for past mistakes, try to correct them and openly apologize for them. Build trust with honesty and transparency. Set up a system to hear and understand the concerns of church members, and act on these concerns to improve the church. Then we would have common consent.
I am afraid you are right, that there is no indication that this could happen at this point. However, it is what is necessary if church wishes to remain a viable institution in the age of the internet. Our young people are too smart to remain trapped and unquestioning in a faith promoting narrative while more accurate information is readily available every where around them.
I generally prefer a repair model vs a scorched earth model.
Regarding school shootings, the Republicans have declared that it’s an unfixable problem, meaning we have no choice but to re-set US gun culture. But they won’t. Following the $ and whatnot.
What fascinates me is this notion that one person’s government waste is simply another person’s salary for performing a job. But I guess as long as it’s not your job on the chopping block, we can continue to call it waste. All the tax savings in the world doesn’t pay the mortgage when your job is eliminated. I’m firmly of the opinion that efficiency should not replace humanity, but competing with that notion is Ebenezer Scrooge’s famous line “If they would rather die then they ought to get on with it and reduce the surplus population.”
As for the church, it’s simply too broken for me to bother. But I don’t think it needs to burn. I think a few repairs would go a long way for most members.
I think that lws and others have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Our teaching of infallibility, or our refusal to teach fallibility, is inhibiting our dealing with truth. Paul wrote that Peter was wrong for his pro-circumcision, Judaizing stance. Peter commented that some of Paul’s teachings were hard to understand, perhaps suggesting that silence might have been better. If the early apostles are the role models for our apostles, then we should want them to be fallible and flawed. The Lord can work with fallible and flawed people when they’re also humble.
We can’t accept fallibility because we misunderstand a specific teaching. We teach that the Lord will not allow the restored church to fall away before the Second Coming. The problem comes when people interpret that to mean that the church’s leaders cannot make mistakes, or that the Lord makes every decision. That idea seems to conflict with D&C 88:51-61 (q.v.), pointed out above by ji. Church leaders, high and low, can make mistakes, and mistakes can build on earlier errors over many years–but the church has not fallen away. An error, or a group of errors, can lead to a course correction. Let’s look at the early church again. Many of the Twelve, including Peter, believed that one needed to become Jewish before becoming Christian, and thus Christians needed to be circumcised (if male) and to follow Jewish dietary rules. Paul disagreed, citing Peter’s own revelation before going to see Cornelius, a Gentile, who became Christian without first becoming Jewish. The church was not in apostasy, and the error continued for some years until a course correction was made.
Course corrections are good, and are probably better than continuing in error. The ability to make a course correction is a sign of humility. Course correction is incrementalism at work. Peter taught that we give converts milk before meat, but he also taught that we can’t on milk forever. We need to grow, and that means that we can look at some things differently as we advance. That’s incrementalism, or at least one aspect of it.
Georgis,
IMO, most of the evidence put forth to demonstrate fallibility among the apostles is a neatly woven narrative that is true in some respects but largely driven by opinion more than facts. Yes, the apostles are fallible–but not in the way that most folks suggest, IMO. The incremental changes that occur in the church have more to do with responding to a rapidly changing modern world than they do with the apostles supposedly “coming around.” Though I must say that some folks have taken their interpretation of “changes” made in the church to an unhealthy extreme. While the *methods* of administering the gospel are changed and adapted to meet the needs of members living in an ever changing environment–the core elements of the gospel have never changed.
That said, when we speak of “course corrections” we should keep in mind that folks on the right hope for a set of course corrections that–IMO–are likely to be quite antithetical to what folks on the left hope for. And to complicate things further–my guess is that if we were to ask ten randomly selected members of the church what changes they’d like to see we’d probably get ten different answers. So lets’ be careful not suppose that if the course corrections that we hope for are not happening–that the brethren are out of touch or lack humility or some such failing. Especially when it could very well be us–we as individuals–who lack the humility necessary to accept counsel form the Lord’s anointed. Whether it be the church’s teachings on marriage and family or the First Presidency’s counsel on the pandemic or some other pertinent counsel–we will all be challenged at one time or another by the counsel of living prophets. It seems that one of the markers of true prophets is that their words will offend just about everyone at one time or another.
My last comments comes across a little combative. Sorry, Georgis, that wasn’t my intent. I just wanted to bring some balance to the discussion–from my PoV.
All good, Jack. I didn’t detect any combativeness. You make some good points, but we still teach infallibility. You wrote, fairly so, that “‘methods’ of administering the gospel are changed and adapted to meet the needs of members” today. I’m OK with that. But when some people at the top preach that practices and doctrine are unchanged and unchangeable, and practices (or methods) are indistinguishable from doctrine, and we don’t know the difference between practice and doctrine until something isn’t a practice anymore, I’m not at peace with that. Then we add that apostasy includes disagreeing with all and any methods and practices. Apostasy used to mean teaching false doctrine, but doctrine meant those basic and core teachings. Today everything is doctrine and all church teachings and practices come from God, even if it changes only after only a very few short years. Everything isn’t revelation. Good people are trying to lead the church as best as they can, and sometimes they get it a little wrong, but we can’t teach that. It goes all the way down, to the teaching to bishops that when they issue callings they’re not to invite someone to accept a calling; they’re to command the person in the name of the Lord that the Lord Himself has called you to this calling, and to hesitate is to reject God Himself.
Everything in our church, including our new definition of apostasy, proclaims from the rooftops that every leader is fully divine in every decision he makes. But the NT (are we allowed to teach from it?) teaches that Paul disagreed with Peter on a very important issue, and ultimately Peter admitted that he was wrong at the council of Jerusalem. The emphasis on exact obedience hurts many people who really are trying to live righteously, but it reinforces infallibility, because the exact obedience isn’t to the Lord, but it is to one’s mission president (if a missionary), or to one’s ward or stake leaders, or to the general authorities, because these infallible leaders speak infallibly and only the will of the Lord, and never their own thoughts.
My wife believed in a bishop’s infallibility until her bishop hurt her very much by blabbing to others about her private business. She’s still faithful, but she’ll never tell a bishop anything in confidence again. I think that it would be very helpful for one of the very senior leaders to acknowledge at GC that bishops err, and so do stake presidents, and even in the highest quorums and councils people err. That act of humility might heal some hearts that have been powerfully wounded. Yes, there are a few random quotes that say our leaders are not infallible, but that weak teaching is belied over and over again by other teachings and by our engrained practices. We could teach that members who get bad counsel should go to the Lord, and if appropriate should not follow bad counsel from local or general leaders. Yes, Pres. Nelson taught shortly after he became president that members need to learn to get revelation for themselves, but since then other leaders seem to have tried to claw it back, telling us basically that we don’t need to go to the Lord, because if you get any answer different from what your leader received then you know you’re getting answers from the devil, because (once again) church leaders are infallible and can’t err. Just do what you’re told, even if you’re told wrong, because you’ll be blessed for your obedience to bad counsel. Exact obedience to leaders (because they’re infallible) has become more important that living righteously as best as one can.
Maybe you’re right: maybe over time we will see an incremental but steady move to acknowledge leader fallibility. I think that would be good. I think that members would learn to have confidence and trust in leaders if both leaders and members admitted that we’re all fallible and we’re all trying our best.
@Jack,
I feel like you are playing word games and spouting generalities without basis. You said,
IMO, most of the evidence put forth to demonstrate fallibility among the apostles is a neatly woven narrative that is true in some respects but largely driven by opinion more than facts.
Let’s get more specific..
Fact: On Nov. 15, 2015, the Q15 jointly made a decision to bar children with a gay parent from baptism.
Fact: Russell Nelson shortly thereafter explained that the Q15 had met and prayed together about the decision, that the Spirit had been present and confirmed the decision, and all the Q15 were in agreement.
Fact: On April 4, 2019, the Q15 jointly announced the reversal of the Nov. 15, 2015 “revelation”.
Fact: Russell Nelson again explained that the decision to reverse course had been made after the collective Q15 had counseled and prayed together, and the Spirit had confirmed their decision.
I claim that this is an example of prophetic fallibility in the Church. I don’t believe that God directed the Q15 to prohibit the baptisms of children with a gay parent in 2015 and then reversed course 3 short years later in 2019. In particular, I don’t believe that the Holy Ghost confirmed both of these actions to the Q15. Yes, that is my personal opinion. I openly admit that I cannot definitively prove this is the case in a W&T comment because we’re talking about supernatural events and/or beings here that left no physical evidence (the Q15 supposedly felt the Spirit in both cases, and this cannot be proven or disproven in a W&T comment).
Since you believe in prophetic infallibility, I will assume (correct me if I’m wrong) that you would argue that the Q15, in fact, did not err here. You believe that both the enactment of the POX in 2015 and its reversal in 2019 were the will of God, that the correctness of both actions was confirmed to the Q15 by the Holy Ghost. That would be your personal opinion, and you also cannot prove that your interpretation of the events in this way is correct because, again, we’re talking about supernatural events and/or beings here that left no physical evidence.
Now, please justify your claim in this instance that my version of events is a, “neatly woven narrative that is true in some respects but largely driven by opinion more than facts” and how your version of events doesn’t require a whole lot more fancy narrative weaving to justify your opinion based on the facts. Indeed, your opinion always seems to be that prophets don’t make significant mistakes in their leadership of the Church, but it really looks more to an awful lot of people that the facts simply don’t line up to support this position in this case (unless you really think God changed his mind in 3 short years and wanted the chaos and hurt that was felt by so many affected members), so I feel like it’s fairly obvious that you are the one ignoring the facts in order to not deviate from your deeply held opinion that prophets could not err in something of such importance.
Let’s try another example…
Fact: Ezra Benson in 1987 gave the talk, “To the Mothers in Zion” where he said that all women should stay home and not have a career if at all possible.
Fact: Benson’s 1987 talk was a reiteration of many Q15 statements through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. This was the official Q15 position, and you can see it written into the roles of men versus women in the Family Proclamation as well.
Fact: A member of the Q15 has not spoken against women working outside the home since, I’m not sure, but maybe the year 2000? Let’s just agree that it’s been many, many years.
Fact: The current General Relief Society President worked outside the home as a lawyer while raising her children. She made the choice to do so right about the time that Benson gave his famous talk. Perhaps this is an opinion, but I think it’s difficult to argue that Benson would have ever called her to her position because she chose to defy his teaching and became a working mother.
My Opinion: The fact that the Q15 haven’t spoken on this topic in so many years reflects a shift on their part. If they viewed this issue as importantly as Benson, Kimball, and many other predecessors, they would be duty-bound and directed by God to speak out on such an important topic for our day. The Q15 during Benson’s tenure and the current Q15 cannot both be correct since they hold conflicting positions on whether women should always stay at home. It’s quite clear that the Q15 has flip-flopped on this issue within the course of 10-15 years. My opinion is that God didn’t direct Benson’s Q15 to tell all women that their role was in the home and then 15 years later to tell the Q15 at the time that it was OK for couples to decide on their own whether it was best for the wife to stay at home or to work.
Your Opinion: My assumption is that you think Benson’s Q15 and the current Q15 are doing the right thing, so your opinion is that God directed Benson’s Q15 to tell women to stay at home, and then 10-15 years later, God directed the Q15 to leave the decision up to the married couples with the understanding that staying home isn’t best for all women, even when the family doesn’t lack money. In other words, because you believe in prophetic infallibility, your opinion is that God Himself flip-flopped on this issue over the course of 10-15 years. You can correct me if I’m wrong here, but you are on the record as stating that the collective Q15 can’t err on important matters in the Church, so this seems to me to be the position that you would take.
Again, in this case of the shifting doctrine of women working outside the home, who is relying on facts versus opinion more to support their viewpoint on prophetic fallibility/infallibility? I argue that because you stubbornly refuse to reject prophetic infallibility, you are the one that is relying more on opinion and spending more effort weavy fancy narratives to defend your deeply held assumption that the Q15 can’t be wrong.
I believe that your recent comment where you stated, “Yes, the apostles are fallible–but not in the way that most folks suggest, IMO” was misleading. At least, you appear to me to have misled Georgis–unless you’ve changed your position on infallibility. I can’t remember which W&T post it was, but there was a post a long time ago, where I pushed back on you on the topic of infallibility, and I asked you multiple times to provide a single example of prophetic infallibility since Joseph’s time, and you dodged the question a few times, before you finally provided a very insignificant example from the 1800s that was disavowed a long time ago (don’;t remember what it was, but it’s pretty minor, and not a very good example).
This is typical orthodox Mormon behavior. Many orthodox Mormons claim to believe in fallible Church leaders, yet when pressed, they will refuse to name a single instance of fallibility over the 200 year history of the Church. Why? They don’t really believe in prophetic fallibility. I suspect that this is the case for you as well.
I challenge you again, Jack. For purposes of this discussion, I define prophetic fallibility as a mistake that was made by the collective Q15 that was significant enough that it caused unnecessary pain and suffering to a significant portion of the membership of the Church. The two examples I cited above (POX and women’s roles) would qualify under this definition, in my opinion. I challenge you to give one example of prophetic infallibility in the Church under this definition that has happened over the last 100 years. Are you able to do that? If not, then perhaps you don’t really believe in prophetic fallibility after all.
You did state that you think “apostles are fallible–but not in the way most folks suggest.” If you can’t come up with an example of fallibility in the last 100 years that fits my definition, then please elaborate on your definition of fallibility that “most folks” can’t see or understand.
@Jack
“most of the evidence put forth to demonstrate fallibility among the apostles is a neatly woven narrative that is true in some respects but largely driven by opinion more than facts.”
But isn’t this exactly the same way that church history has been taught–a “woven narrative”? The effort is now just barely providing sources, but it is still slanted towards the theological priorities it has keep over anything else. I don’t know if we’ve gone through the book This Is My Doctrine, but it is fascinating to see how doctrines have changed over time.
“Especially when it could very well be us–we as individuals–who lack the humility necessary to accept counsel form the Lord’s anointed.”
That is your theological priority. I understand where you’re coming from (as I used to stand “rooted” in that position myself once), but I guess I don’t agree with your assertion that narratives counter to the approved ones are driven mostly by opinion. I’ve found alternatives to be just as well sourced and receipts shown as the newer stuff the church is putting out. Remember that the priesthood ban push back was driven by evidence and data. It was the Q15 who specifically resisted the realities around them to instead stick with their own strongly held opinions and prejudices. Yes, there are critical narratives that are badly put together, that have an agenda, but in that same vein, everything the church does is driven by agenda. And often that has come at the expense of the truth. Take the teachings of the prophets manuals. The Brigham Young one removed all references to polygamy. It even changed his original words where he referred to “wives” to be just “wife.” I heard a church history or apologist explain this away as “well, our job is teach about Christ.” And while I get that, that is still purposefully omitting the truth, which we typically call lying.
The church will never be able to make 100% of people happy. Following the “Lord’s anointed” would go better if the Lord himself were consistent in revealing to people that these individuals were actually the Lord’s anointed or that the Book of Mormon was true. But alas, the lived experience of many are all over the map. I’m guessing that you have received some spiritual answer to these questions that reinforce your current position and that is wonderful. But in that same vein, there so many other experiences as well where people who ask the questions get different answers or no answers at all. Not to mention all the disappointment that is found went you peel back all the hagiographical narratives the church has pushed for so long and then engage ALL the sources on their own terms. So maybe you, like the rest of us and the Q15, see equally as badly and maybe by humbly accepting that reality we should all hold our beliefs and what we think we know more loosely than we currently do.
The problem I have with the traditional belief in prophetic infallibility, is the reality, that when we claim that God chose to inspire those men with teachings that are ultimately hurtful to the children of God, we are claiming God is the one that is hurtful, unloving and fallible.
For you Jack: My testimony is that this is wrong. God loves his children, and as it says clearly in the Book of Mormon, if there are any errors, they are the errors of men.
Thankyou mountainclimber479, chrisdrobison, and Iws329, for your thoughtful responses. You’re all gems of the first order. I hope my response to mountainclimber’s challenge will be a sufficient response to all three of you.
“Now, please justify your claim in this instance that my version of events is a, “neatly woven narrative that is true in some respects but largely driven by opinion more than facts” and how your version of events doesn’t require a whole lot more fancy narrative weaving to justify your opinion based on the facts. Indeed, your opinion always seems to be that prophets don’t make significant mistakes in their leadership of the Church, but it really looks more to an awful lot of people that the facts simply don’t line up to support this position in this case (unless you really think God changed his mind in 3 short years and wanted the chaos and hurt that was felt by so many affected members), so I feel like it’s fairly obvious that you are the one ignoring the facts in order to not deviate from your deeply held opinion that prophets could not err in something of such importance.”
This is the way I see it. The apostles issued what some folks call the “POX” in the handbook. There was a terrible outcry from those who opposed it. And so the apostles thought, “is there a way to modify this policy so that it will cause less pain to the members but still be within the scope of the Lord’s will.” And that’s what they did–IMO. It was that simple–and it was all done with heavenly approval.
I think we forget sometimes that there is a lot of wiggle room–at least in some cases–within the scope of the Lord’s will. In section 103 of the D&C the Lord tells Joseph Smith to gather men for Zion’s Camp. But, interestingly, he tells him that it is his will that he gather 500 men–but!–if he can’t find 500 to gather 300 and if he can’t find 300 to gather 100. And then he gives him a commandment that he must gather at least 100 men or he is not to make the journey.
There is often that kind of range within the scope of the Lord’s will–even in the highest councils of the church–especially when we’re dealing with policy. And so we have to be careful that we don’t automatically assume that the prophets misunderstand or misrepresent the spirit of revelation when making changes in policy. While that kind of error is certainly possible I think the more likely scenario is that policy making is in constant flux because of the ever changing world that the saints inhabit. With that in mind we should remember that the “POX” wasn’t “reversed” so much as it was reframed so that local leaders have more power to determine how to move forward in those situations.
I think we should also consider that the first iteration of the “POX” helped not only the apostles to feel the pulse of the church on these issues–but it helped the saints as well. IMO, that was one of the purposes of our involvement with prop 8–so that the *saints* would know where we stood on the issue. And so, even though certain directives may seem like failures from a particular perspective they often have other purposes that are not easily identified or perhaps require a little time before the benefits of such actions are understood.
“The current General Relief Society President worked outside the home as a lawyer while raising her children. She made the choice to do so right about the time that Benson gave his famous talk.”
This query for me has a very straightforward answer: personal revelation trumps general counsel. I love the general counsel that we receive from living prophets–and I try to follow it as best as my circumstances allow. But there are times when personal revelation might steer me in a direction that seems counterintuitive to general counsel. And so what is to be done? We follow the dictates of personal revelation–keeping it to ourselves–all the while edifying the church with our support of general counsel.
One last thing–a little something to chew on: What if not only the saints but the entire West followed President Benson’s counsel–that mothers should stay home? I think one thing that might’ve happened–the economy would’ve adjusted to the demands of the culture and it would not required two incomes these days to buy and maintain a home.
Responding to mountainclimber479 more directly:
I don’t believe I can find any big mistakes on the part of the apostles when they’ve spoken with a unified voice. That said–sure they’ve made all kinds of errors when speaking on their own about one thing or another. But those mistakes tend not to be very significant in the grand scheme of things–not to me at any rate. And if there are any that might cause me some consternation–well my MO is to true to forgive them and move on. They are human–like me–after all.
That said, sure Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong about organic evolution (IMO). But what often happens is that these sorts of errors are lifted out of context and displayed in the buff so that they loom larger than they really are. First off, his Doctrines of Salvation was not a church publication. And second–and more importantly–we forget what he was right about: and that is that evolution does not disprove that God is the Creator nor that we are his children. For a lot of concerned folks in those days *that* was the locus of the argument–more so than the viability of evolution as a science.
And so, yeah the apostles are not perfect–and they make mistakes. But even so, I believe the fact they form a quorum is what keeps them from making the kinds of big mistakes that could lead the church astray. That’s why the big questions tend to be settle by their united voice–and that’s when (IMO) we should lend an ear to their counsel more than ever.
Personal revelation in front of other kinds of revelation. I have to agree with that Jack. After all, I know the details of my life that no leader has access to or can understand in context.
Iws329,
Yes. But I must say that there have been a few uncanny moments in my life when a Bishop somehow had a better understanding of what I needed than I did. Just a quick example:
When I first hit the wall of depression some 20+ years ago I was so mentally discombobulated that my fears about myself caused me to believe that I had, perhaps, killed someone when I was younger–but that I had somehow repressed the memory of it. I spoke to my Bishop about it–and he told me without any reservation that there was nothing like that in my past. And then he spoke of how the power of priesthood keys enabled to have that kind of knowledge. That said, it’s not the Bishop–the man himself–who knows more than we do about ourselves. It’s the Lord working through him as an instrument of revelation who knows all in all.
@Jack,
The POX was truly a reversal: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2019/05/news-of-the-church/policy-for-children-of-lgbt-parents-members-in-gay-marriages?lang=eng. The end state of the POX reversal was virtually the same state that existed prior to the enactment of the POX in 2015. There is no refining or iterating going on here. Either God got it wrong or changed His mind or the Q15 got it wrong or changed their collective mind in the span of 3 years. All this talk about “wiggle room” or some “kind of range within the scope of the Lord’s will” simply doesn’t apply in this case. Really, it doesn’t. The fact is that the controversial parts of the POX were completely and totally reversed. I choose to think the Q15 got it wrong. Yep, that’s my opinion. Maybe God really did want things to go down the way they did, but given the facts, that seems very, very unlikely to me. You, on the other hand, appear to be weaving a complex and likely false narrative that ignores the facts so that your deeply rooted opinion that the Q15 can never err in such a large way remains intact.
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth when you suggest that the POX helped the Q15 “feel the pulse of the church”. On the one hand, you are saying that they weren’t guided by the Holy Ghost when they needed to get a sense of the pulse of the church. On the other hand, you are saying that the Holy Ghost told them that enacting the POX was the will of God. You can’t have it both ways.
(For the record, I consider the Zion’s Camp debacle to be another excellent example of prophetic fallibility. My opinion is that Zion’s Camp never should have happened, Joseph mistook his pride for revelation in thinking he could go and recover Mormon lands in Missouri, God never desired the violent triumph that Joseph and his followers lusted after, Zion’s Camp completely failed to meet its “revealed” goals, and a lot of people needlessly suffered or died as a result. Yes, I’m well aware of the apologetics suggesting Zion’s Camp actually was a roaring success, but I don’t buy it–you have to weave far too complex of a narrative not based in fact to get there for my taste.)
You completely dodged the issue on women’s roles. Just stating that the General Relief Society President used personal revelation in her personal circumstance wasn’t the main point I was making. The main point is that Benson’s Q15 and the Q15 about 15 years after Benson had completely different positions on whether it was OK for women to work outside the home. Both Q15s can’t be right since their positions are completely opposite, so one of them must be wrong. Again, there’s no “wiggle room” in this case either. At one point, it most definitely was not OK for women to work outside the home, and today it’s perfectly acceptable to the point where multiple career women are being called to the General Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary Presidencies.
Again, you accused people like me of creating a “neatly woven narrative that is true in some respects but largely driven by opinion more than facts”, and I’m just not seeing how I’m doing that in either of the two examples I provided. In fact, instead of weaving false narratives based on my own wild opinions, I think I’m simply providing the simplest explanation for the facts, namely prophetic fallibility.“Wiggle room”, “ranges within the scope of the Lord’s will”, “feeling the pulse of the church”, etc. sure feel to me like crude devices created by an apologist in order to construct a not-so-“neatly woven narrative that is true in some respects, but largely driven by opinion (or dogma!) more than facts”.
Simplicity, while often correct, isn’t always right. I’ve provided two examples here where the simplest explanation is prophetic fallibility. Add to that dozens of other similar examples from Church history, where prophetic fallibility is the simplest explanation, and a pattern really does seem to emerge.
I appreciate your candor in admitting that you don’t think the Q15 has ever made a significant error that needlessly hurt a number of members. I obviously believe very differently than you. For the record, when people speak here about prophetic infallibility, I think they are largely speaking of something close to my definition of prophetic fallibility(official Q15 positions that caused harm to members of the Church that ended up being reversed or potentially ought to be reversed because they weren’t/aren’t God’s will), so when you start to make claims in your comments that you actually do believe in prophetic fallibility, then it kind of muddies the water.
Your comments here pretty much universally precisely mirror the official opinions of the Q15 because you think they are, as a group, infallible. I think that a lot of the threads that you are involved in here could be much, much shorter if you’d just state that up front. After all, there is very little use to try to engage you in discussion or attempt to convince you of alternate perspectives if you are always going to fall back on the idea that the position of the Q15 is always right because they have access to supernatural sources of knowledge that no one else has access to.
One last thing–women wanting to work outside the home isn’t all about the money. A lot of women find a lot more fulfillment in pursuing a career over being a lifelong homemaker. As a man, I have spent some time thinking about this question, and I can say without a doubt that I would have much preferred to have a career outside the home had I been born a woman.. In fact, I believe that I likely would have become very depressed or mentally ill had I been forced to remain a homemaker my whole life, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the money. It turns out that the “gospel” of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–which unfortunately is often quite different than the gospel of Jesus Christ–works a whole lot better for white, heterosexual, first-world, well-educated males than it does for most other people. Be glad that you were born one of those.
I’m more of an incrementalist. Slow, steady progress is better than a fast destruction, especially when there is no guarantee that what got broken will get fixed. As I blogged last week, I firmly believe we need government laws and regulations to make sure that companies don’t dump toxic chemicals in the water and air. The EPA is getting broken, and I don’t trust the Project 2025 Administration to replace it with anything that’s effective.
mountainclimber479,
My explanations are straightforward, simple, and easy to understand to those who believe the apostles to be the Lord’s anointed. And that I think is where the real disagreement lies between you and I–whether or not the apostles are the Lord’s servants. I respect your right to believe or not believe in whatever you wish however you wish. And I think you do pretty-much the same for me. Even so, we need to recognize that we often talk past one another because of our differences in paradigms. You believe that Zion’s Camp was a failure. I believe that it was ultimately a success. There it is.
@Jack, you said:
I disagree. Even if I assume the position that the Q15 never makes a mistake, the explanations you provide for some of what I believe are their errors often seem awfully convoluted and anything but straightforward, simple, or easy to understand. “Mental gymnastics” is a phrase often bandied about for this kind of thinking in ex-Mormon spaces. It can be exhausting and dizzying to watch and read people perform such feats. Sometimes I feel like the better apologists do throw in the towel and admit that they have no reasonably good explanation for some difficult issues, but they just take in on faith that their source of authority (scripture, leaders, etc.) are right in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
jack,
I just tried to look up the october 1969 conference report and failed. From memory the prophet spoke to missionaries coming home and told them their next responsibility was to get married. Not to worry about education, or employment, the lord would provide if you were obedient. There were also numerous talks on the evils of birth control.
I phoned my girlfriend from a phone box on the way home from the chapel where the conference was broadcast, and asked her to marry me. In England, where we lived, banns had to be read, and process before you could be married. She arranged these.
I came home in Jan 1970, we were married in March 1970. I did not have a job and was not qualified for further education. Because of the ban on birth control our first child was born in jan 71. By then I had a job as a sales rep, the only job I could get.
We had 3 more children before my wife was told she would not survive another pregnancy. We were living in poverty. My parents helped us with rent and a car. We lived in poverty for the first 10 years of our life.
Strangely the church no longer teaches either of these things, so presumably they were not eternal principles, just the culture/idea of the prophet at the time. Perhaps it worked in Utah but not in other places.
The same applies to race and the priesthood, women working outside the home, and male only priesthood.
The 15 have taught things that caused incredibley damaging consequences for those who obeyed them believing they were speaking for God, when they were in fact just giving their opinions.
There was no talk of personal revelation then.
Jack, I appreciate your allowance for personal revelation, and that personal revelation might sometimes trump the prophet’s general revelation. I agree. For the sisters who received personal revelation to not follow President Benson’s counsel for women to stay home and not to work outside the home, okay. May I ask two questions…
(1) Doesn’t Elder Renlund and others tell us that personal revelation cannot differ from the prophet’s revelation?
(2) Is it fair for these sisters, who have advanced to high positions, to now teach other members to be EXACT in obedience to the current prophet?
As for brokenism. The way we eventually raised ourselves out of poverty was to buy land 2 hours outside the city I worked in and build a design and build a house out of cool room panels, which was valued at triple what it cost to build.
Brokenism only works if you have a plan for the better alternative, before you break or in my case find an alternative way of doing things.
I see trump and co breaking things without a better alternative.
Australia had a free trade agreement with the US. Which is a legal document. Just been ignored by trump. We supply something like 3% of the steel and aluminium America uses, but buy twice as much from America as we sell. Trump is threatening a 25% tariff.
We will see, but like Canada a lot of people here will now boycott anything American. Including religion.
Geoff-Aus,
Sounds like you did OK to me. And aren’t you glad that you had all four of those children? Imagine having only two children instead of four because, forsooth, the counsel you received on marriage and family was more relaxed than it was in those days. What a terrible loss that would be.
ji,
Here’s a quote from Elder Renlund:
“Personal revelation rightly belongs to individuals. You can receive revelation, for example, about where to live, what career path to follow, or whom to marry. Church leaders may teach doctrine and share inspired counsel, but the responsibility for these decisions rests with you. That is your revelation to receive; that is your runway.”
He does say elsewhere in his talk that we’re not likely to get revelation that is contrary to the commandments or that has to do with a stewardship that is not our own. That said, I want to make it clear that–in my own experience–personal revelation that runs counterintuitively to general counsel is very rare and should be kept private. And that we should never pit personal revelation against general counsel.
Re: your second question: all I can say is that I think it’s right to teach that we should follow the counsel of living prophets with exactness–even though that “exactness” may look different from one person to another. I don’t know how to figure the histories of the women teaching that precept–except to say that they seem to be OK with it. And that means, IMO, that they’ve come to terms with whatever they might’ve done wrong–or that they had good reasons for doing what they did that was contrary to general counsel at the time. What we don’t want to do–and I’m not saying you’re doing this–is “watch for iniquity” or “hate those who reprove in the gate.” I’m glad that I’ll never be a general authority because–ooh-wee–folks would have a field day digging up all the reasons why I’d be unfit for the job.
mountainclimber479,
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. You’re a smart cookie–but we’re coming from two different angles at this. And it’s very difficult to reconcile them because of the differences in our epistemological views and cultural concerns and so forth. Best to you, brother.
Jack,
I agree that personal feelings should not necessarily be regarded as revelation. My oldest son pointed this out to me when he left the church. At a young age he witnessed my husband’s depression and the blame he laid on me for his bad feelings (to be fair depression is common when you are trying your best to care for special needs children, and we have three, and externalizing blame is common in men). Any way, my oldest isn’t disabled and is gifted and was witness to all this difficulty. I found his observations compelling.
You shared your experience with your bishop. I had the opposite. My bishop took my husband’s side in our conflict and communicated that he was convinced that I was treating my husband badly and without respect. I eventually came to understand very clearly that this wasn’t true. In fact when I gained confidence and rejected my husband’s blame, he eventually accepted it and today we have a great deal of peace and harmony in our marriage.
However it was an important thing for me to understand my bishop genuinely was wrong about his assessment of me. I do think he also came to understand over time, but the paradigm that he bishop is inspired and I have to follow his council really contributed to a lot of pain for our family. On top of that putting infallibility on bishops and other leaders is simply too much pressure. They are people. Like anyone else, they don’t always understand and sometimes they get things wrong.
That doesn’t mean there’s no value in the church, or community or theology. However, it can be toxic in certain instances, but mostly because it is presented as always absolutely right. Making room for fallibility would increase members maturity, flexibility, personal revelation and faith in their own connection with God
To Jack’s point, next time I’m in a disagreement with someone, I’ll just claim revelation and that will make what I say incontrovertible truth.
In the scientific world, an expert becomes an expert because they’re good at making arguments and linking evidence to them. This doesn’t mean that they’re inherently right or can’t be disagreed with. But disagreements should be built around evidence and good argument structure. In Mormonism, a leader is right because they claim revelation. And that’s it. No disagreeing. An individual can be right about a career move or a marriage because revelation. Can’t be questioned after that.
My explanations are straightforward, simple, and easy to understand to those who believe the apostles to be the Lord’s anointed.
What a load of crap.
God: I’m no respect or of persons.
Elder Bednar: Shame on you for not standing up when I enter the room.
God: Don’t bear false witness.
Elder Holland: No Mitt Romney never took a blood oath.
Elder Oaks: Conversion therapy wasn’t a thing under my watch.
God: Before ye seek for riches seek ye the kingdom of God.
First presidency: Let’s lie to the SEC for 25 years on our regulatory forms in order to keep the $$ pouring in.
God: The kingdom of God is within.
Church: You will burn in hell without us.
God: Contention is of the devil.
President Nelson: calling people names like lazy learner and lax disciple and covenant breaker.
God: Feed my sheep
Church: don’t help immigrants
As Steve Rogers says, I could do this all day.
Nicely written Hawkgrrl. I vote for unordain men. But really what I feel is that the whole “calling” structure in the church could be dramatically simplified. The “restored” gospel has been around for a couple of hundred years. Enough people get it. The most important work of all gospels of Christ, restored or not, is done outside the wall of a church or chapel. In the spirit of Musk (but only the few good parts 🙂 ) we could cut all of the named “callings” by 75% and just spend our time and effort in serving each other’s real needs – in ways that reach the least of us – which is all of us.