One true church of Christ?

[peteolcott]

I have the testimony that the LDS church is the most righteous church on Earth.

I also remember from the last general conference (Friday night or Sunday Morning) that one of the speakers acknowledged he gave a talk in the morning and later realized in the afternoon or evening that his morning talk was incorrect and then provided the right talk.

Could someone please find out exactly which talk this was?

I am trying to define exactly what the term {One true church of Christ} means.

The Catholic church seems to think that the pope is infallible whenever he speaks from his chair.

That one of your leaders acknowledged that a talk that he gave was incorrect would seem to explicitly acknowledge human fallibility. Exactly where does one draw the line between inherent human fallibility and the meaning of the term {One true church of Christ} ?

[Dravin]

Well the meaning of the one true church of Christ isn't, "The leaders are infallible." So that is where I would draw the line.

[Traveler]

Just as in ancient times the infallible truth of the church is not in the human individuals that are members – for a leader is nothing more than just another human member (ancient examples of the fallibility of leaders are in King David and the prophet Jonah). The truth is in the covenants given, received and therefore upheld within the church - thus the covenant is infallible – not any of the men. Understanding covenants would bring a person to understand that for each individual following – they are thus more important in upholding their covenant than are their leaders. For this reason no LDS leader is sustained in their calling nor is law given without the consent of the each individual receiving the covenant. This understanding, in essence, is why the LDS is the only true church.

The Traveler

[peteolcott]

Well the meaning of the one true church of Christ isn't, "The leaders are infallible." So that is where I would draw the line.

So the prophet could provide a message that he thought was from the Holy Spirit and later change his mind?

[beefche]

I also remember from the last general conference (Friday night or Sunday Morning) that one of the speakers acknowledged he gave a talk in the morning and later realized in the afternoon or evening that his morning talk was incorrect and then provided the right talk.

Could someone please find out exactly which talk this was?

Um, no, if you are claiming such, you have the obligation to find out exactly which talk this was.

BTW, General Conference isn't on Friday nights.

[peteolcott]

Um, no, if you are claiming such, you have the obligation to find out exactly which talk this was.

BTW, General Conference isn't on Friday nights.

The priesthood session of the general (rather than stake) conference.

[HEthePrimate]

The priesthood session of the general (rather than stake) conference.

Dude, the priesthood session of General Conference is always on SATURDAY night, not Friday night.

[peteolcott]

Dude, the priesthood session of General Conference is always on SATURDAY night, not Friday night.

Well I guess that I forgot this. It was a weekend night so I remembered it incorrectly.

[john doe]

Priesthood Session isn't on Friday nights either. No wonder you can't find it.

[Vort]

I also remember from the last general conference (Friday night or Sunday Morning) that one of the speakers acknowledged he gave a talk in the morning and later realized in the afternoon or evening that his morning talk was incorrect and then provided the right talk.

Could someone please find out exactly which talk this was?

I am sure I would remember this if it had happened, so I think you are misremembering.

The only people who speak more than once at General Conference are members of the First Presidency. So if this had happened, it would have been Brother Monson, Brother Eyring, or Brother Uchtdorf.

That one of your leaders acknowledged that a talk that he gave was incorrect would seem to explicitly acknowledge human fallibility. Exactly where does one draw the line between inherent human fallibility and the meaning of the term {One true church of Christ} ?

Again, I disbelieve that this happened, so until you can provide some evidence, I will believe it did not.

Nevertheless, I could believe such a thing could occur. What of it? How would human fallibility -- something the Church and its leaders have always acknowledged -- have any bearing on the LDS Church being Christ's true Church? Even the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith said was "the most correct book" on the Earth, freely admits the possibility of error on the very first page and numerous other times throughout.

[Traveler]

So the prophet could provide a message that he thought was from the Holy Spirit and later change his mind?

I believe you have everything backwards. Just as you could be converted to the teaching of a certain individual and later change your mind because of various pressures. Just as Jonah knew G-d had a mission for him but he did not act upon it correctly - but later did. The fact that someone can be corrected is a better sign than someone that thinks no correction is ever necessary.

The most accurate missile system ever created relies on that fact that it is always updating and correction it course - many times per second. I believe that without the ability to correct itself nothing would stay on course - I believe this is actually what makes G-d infallible.

The Traveler

[skippy740]

The talk in question was given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson.

The Doctrine of Christ - general-conference

Here is an excerpt from that talk which I think the OP was referencing:

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5 President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

The point of the bolded text was that Brigham Young (in his own power and wisdom as a fallable human being) was speaking in the morning - probably in the spirit of "rallying the troops". He gave the Spirit of Christ-inspired address later that day.

You'll also notice that the speaker was referencing a past leader, not correcting his own talk during the same general conference session. This is probably what tripped up the other posters, because this hasn't happend 'in modern day'.

BTW, if it had been any other talk given during General Conference, I probably wouldn't have remembered it either. This one was especially good.

Edited May 4, 2012 by skippy740

[peteolcott]

The talk in question was given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson.

The Doctrine of Christ - general-conference

Here is an excerpt from that talk which I think the OP was referencing:

The point of the bolded text was that Brigham Young (in his own power and wisdom as a fallable human being) was speaking in the morning - probably in the spirit of "rallying the troops". He gave the Spirit of Christ-inspired address later that day.

You'll also notice that the speaker was referencing a past leader, not correcting his own talk during the same general conference session. This is probably what tripped up the other posters, because this hasn't happend 'in modern day'.

BTW, if it had been any other talk given during General Conference, I probably wouldn't have remembered it either. This one was especially good.

Very excellent. That is exactly it.

Would Brigham Young have been the prophet at the time?

[skippy740]

Yes - Prophet and Governer of the Utah territory.

[Timpman]

Moses and other prophets spoke to the people as men and leaders and gave their own thoughts, opinions, and judgements. At other times they spoke in the capacity of a prophet of God and in His name. The official statements from our prophets are the Word of the Lord.

The notion that the pope is infallible is just laughable.

[peteolcott]

The fact that someone can be corrected is a better sign than someone that thinks no correction is ever necessary.

The Traveler

That is exactly the point that I was trying to confirm.

A key reason why I consider the LDS church to be at least the most righteous church on Earth is that its members and leaders are humble enough to take correction.

I have found that this humility is much more consistent in the LDS church members and leaders than any other church I have ever encountered. United by the spirit for righteousness sake.

[Vort]

The talk in question was given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson.

I should have realized peteolcott was referring to this, but it never occurred to me. Brother Christofferson's talks are uniformly excellent. A few years back, I secretly kind of hoped he would be called to the First Presidency so we could hear from him multiple times during General Conference.

[peteolcott]

The talk in question was given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson.

This is probably what tripped up the other posters, because this hasn't happend 'in modern day'.

Why not in modern day? If the leaders of the church never ever acknowledge their error this might not be a good thing.

[skippy740]

There are many ways that LDS leaders have helped to correct the past erroneous teachings.

However, the other posters thought you were inquiring about a current LDS leader speaking in the morning and then speaking in the afternoon to repudiate what they just spoke about. A 'same day' reversal has not occurred in modern day as it did with Brigham Young.

[peteolcott]

There are many ways that LDS leaders have helped to correct the past erroneous teachings.

However, the other posters thought you were inquiring about a current LDS leader speaking in the morning and then speaking in the afternoon to repudiate what they just spoke about. A 'same day' reversal has not occurred in modern day as it did with Brigham Young.

Could this possibly indicate that a little bit of humility was lost between now and then?

If there have been no indications by any of the church leadership that errors were ever made recently this might not be a good thing.

Alternatively it might be possible that in modern times the church leaders continue to validate their message for several months before ever presenting it, thus make far fewer errors, and the ones made are very small.

To what degree do church leaders of modern times indicate any errors that they may have made?

[skippy740]

I think that the messages from our leaders have been a lot more about "what manner of men ought we to be". It's pretty difficult to get messages of character "wrong". We don't get a lot of "new doctrines" over the pulpits as the church did as it was forming.

So basically, the nature of the messages have changed over the decades - being more focused on character and preparedness, rather than speculations of doctrine.

IMO, while we believe that this is the true church (true meaning we have the doctrines, priesthood and ordinances), true can also be a verb - to bring into alignment.

IMO, the biggest area of church history and doctrine to receive "a correction" wasn't declared as a correction, but as a revelation and official declaration. In fact, I believe that any corrections to doctrines would have to be revealed as a revelation and then sustained by the membership of the church.

You'll also notice that this was a change in the way a particular doctrine was previously understood and practiced.

Now, another example of general authority "errors" was in the stories of Paul H. Dunn. Elder Dunn told some interesting stories that highlighted a particular attribute, but the stories turned out to be false. A statement was read in sacrament meetings regarding his stories (per wikipedia link below) and he was released as a Seventy and was an "Emeritus General Authority" until his death. But just because the details around stories were false, does not necessarily mean that the doctrines weren't true. (Although you'd have to wonder why one would have to embellish (lie) about a story to teach a gospel attribute?)

Paul H. Dunn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited May 5, 2012 by skippy740

[Just_A_Guy]

Could this possibly indicate that a little bit of humility was lost between now and then?

If there have been no indications by any of the church leadership that errors were ever made recently this might not be a good thing.

Alternatively it might be possible that in modern times the church leaders continue to validate their message for several months before ever presenting it, thus make far fewer errors, and the ones made are very small.

To what degree do church leaders of modern times indicate any errors that they may have made?

I think your second explanation is a lot of it: Church leaders today tend to be (not always, but usually) much more careful about what they say in public. I believe nearly all of Brigham Young's sermons were extemporaneous, whereas modern general conferences are almost hyper-scripted. If you make a practice of never speaking off-the-cuff, there just isn't going to be as much need to go back and correct yourself.

Bruce R. McConkie made a rather memorable statement to the effect of "forget everything I ever taught about this topic" when the Church allowed blacks to receive the priesthood back in 1978. Elder Packer offered a clarification to a conference talk he gave a couple years ago that some interpreted as being unduly harsh on gays (and which, IMHO, resulted from his flubbing the written version of the sermon as he delivered it), and back in 2003 or 2004 Elder Nelson offered some later clarifications to a conference talk that, as-delivered, seemed to have a pacifist bent that upset a lot of people.

There was also some Seventy a couple of decades ago (I forget his name, but it's rather an infamous story among Mormon critics) who delivered a conference address that had some language that could have been interpreted as justifying open rebellion against Church leadership. This Seventy actually took the rather extreme step of re-recording the entire sermon, with doctrinal corrections, and substituted that version for the original as-delivered version in the Conference videos that were later distributed to the Church.

So, yes; LDS leadership occasionally make non-doctrinally-kosher public pronouncements and do have to correct themselves.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[bytebear]

(Although you'd have to wonder why one would have to embellish (lie) about a story to teach a gospel attribute?)

Isn't that what a parable is?

[anim82r]

peteolcot,

I hope this helps. you will see here that some of the apostles, including and especially peter, who happened to be the president of the church at that time had to be reprimanded by paul, who was an apostle but probably not a member of the 12, due to some wrong teachings and actions they've displayed towards jewish members and gentile members. here is a classic evidence that members and leaders of the church are fallible. the idea that a leader of the church should be infallible is in the realms of self righteousness.

1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be fustified.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

galatians 2:1-21

Edited May 5, 2012 by anim82r

[peteolcott]

I think your second explanation is a lot of it: Church leaders today tend to be (not always, but usually) much more careful about what they say in public. I believe nearly all of Brigham Young's sermons were extemporaneous, whereas modern general conferences are almost hyper-scripted. If you make a practice of never speaking off-the-cuff, there just isn't going to be as much need to go back and correct yourself.

Bruce R. McConkie made a rather memorable statement to the effect of "forget everything I ever taught about this topic" when the Church allowed blacks to receive the priesthood back in 1978. Elder Packer offered a clarification to a conference talk he gave a couple years ago that some interpreted as being unduly harsh on gays (and which, IMHO, resulted from his flubbing the written version of the sermon as he delivered it), and back in 2003 or 2004 Elder Nelson offered some later clarifications to a conference talk that, as-delivered, seemed to have a pacifist bent that upset a lot of people.

There was also some Seventy a couple of decades ago (I forget his name, but it's rather an infamous story among Mormon critics) who delivered a conference address that had some language that could have been interpreted as justifying open rebellion against Church leadership. This Seventy actually took the rather extreme step of re-recording the entire sermon, with doctrinal corrections, and substituted that version for the original as-delivered version in the Conference videos that were later distributed to the Church.

So, yes; LDS leadership occasionally make non-doctrinally-kosher public pronouncements and do have to correct themselves.

That is pretty clear. It looks like there is substantial humility in the church leaders.

I want to find the exact boundary of this and that is why I pose this next question:

Is it possible that every prophet and leader of the church (past and present) could be in complete agreement on a specific aspect of doctrine, and all of them be at least slightly wrong, or is this considered to be completely and totally impossible?