Mormon Mythology

[Average Joe]

Some LDS seem to see General Authorities as infallible rather then men ordained of God. Yes, they are the Lord's anointed but they retain human frailties. A brief look at Church history supplies ample evidence of this.

 

What happened to the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon?.

 

Cowdery, Whitmer and Harris were all excommunicated

 

What happened to the 3 of the members of the 8 witnesses of the Book of Mormon?

 

Jacob Whitmer – excommunicated

John Whitmer – excommunicated

Hiram Page – excommunicated

 

Have any other General Authorities been Excommunicated?

 

Apostles in the Quorum of the Twelve

 

Thomas B. Marsh (1835-1839) - excommunicated

 

Orson Hyde (1835-1839; 1839-1878) was removed from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles by vote of the church between May 4 and June 27, 1839. However, Hyde retained his apostleship during this time.

 

William E. McLellin (1835-1838) - excommunicated

 

Luke S. Johnson (1835-1838) - excommunicated

 

William Smith (1835-1839; 1839-1845) - excommunicated

 

Orson Pratt (1835-1842; 1843-1881) - excommunicated

 

John F. Boynton (1835-1837) - excommunicated

 

Lyman E. Johnson (1835-1838) - excommunicated

 

John E. Page (1838-1846) - excommunicated

 

Lyman Wight (1841-1848) - excommunicated

 

Amasa M. Lyman (1842-1843; 1844-1867) - excommunicated

 

Albert Carrington (1870-1885) - excommunicated

 

Moses Thatcher (1879-1896) - dropped from the Quorum of the Twelve

 

John W. Taylor (1884-1905) - excommunicated

 

Matthias F. Cowley (1897-1905) - excommunicated

 

Richard R. Lyman (1918-1943) - excommunicated 

 

Two examples from the First Quorum of the Seventy

 

George Patrick Lee was a member of the church's First Quorum of Seventy from 1975 to 1989, when he was excommunicated from the church.

 

Paul H Dunn - was a member of the church's First Quorum of Seventy. It is clear that Dunn was not excommunicated from the church, though it is not known whether or not he was placed under some other form of church discipline, such as disfellowshipment or probation.

 

So what to make of all this?

 

"A living prophet is more important than a dead one." John W. Taylor (apostle from 1884-1905) was excommunicated because of Polygamy expressing the viewpoint that his father, the prophet John Taylor who prophesied plural marriage would not end and John W. Taylor further expressed that Wilford Woodruff's move to end polygamy was politically motivated. Right or wrong, John W. Taylor was removed. 

 

"Follow the prophet" is a phrase that comes to mind. Let's ask this question, when Brigham Young put forth the Adam God theology most of the Quorum of the 12 tactility, if not outright, gave their support - except Orson Pratt. Was Mormonism, according to Pratt’s argument, to become a religion primarily bound to scripture or would it continue to find its fundamental strength in the living oracles who led the church, the position espoused by Brigham Young? 

 

Brigham Young "won" in his day but after his death the Church swiftly reversed direction. So who was really right, Orson or Brigham? This is a conundrum for the Church.

 

Do I sustain my church leaders, yes I do. However, I don't believe in infallibility. Let the stoning begin.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Average Joe

[Palerider]

You mean there Not Perfect ..... Say it ain't so

[cdowis]

Brigham Young "won" in his day but after his death the Church swiftly reversed direction. So who was really right, Orson or Brigham? This is a conundrum for the Church.

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

 

 

 John W. Taylor (apostle from 1884-1905) was excommunicated because of Polygamy expressing the viewpoint that his father, the prophet John Taylor who prophesied plural marriage would not end and John W. Taylor further expressed that Wilford Woodruff's move to end polygamy was politically motivated.

 

Taylor confused the doctrine of polygamy (as expressed by his father) with the practice of polygamy (Wilford Woodruff).  The doctrine is still in effect, the only change is how it is practiced.  And it cannot be practiced unless the one who  holds the key (the President of the Church) permits it.

 

His excommunication was not over polygamy but over the issue of who holds the keys

 

 

 

1. George Patrick Lee   2. Paul Dunn 

 

1. Get your facts straight.

2. "I really don't know what I am talking about."  No you don't.  You are just repeating rumors and gossip.

 

++++++++++++++++

Just an observation -->>

You are walking down a path which may lead you to a place where you do not want to go.  My personal attitude to this issue is that there are some things I do not understand, and it is ok to ask questions.  In some cases it will take many years to understand what is going on, as I get more knowledge, insight,  and spiritual maturity.

Edited September 30, 2015 by cdowis

[Vort]

I strongly suspect that when we have advanced far enough to understand things as they are, we will see the so-called "Adam God doctrine" in an entirely different light. We may find that it is far more true than we currently think, and that weaknesses of our language or deficiencies in our understanding of how things really work -- or both -- are at the root of this supposedly controversial (and doubtless poorly understood) teach of President Young.

[The Folk Prophet]

What is the point of this thread?

[Vort]

Based on the title, I think it's about Bigfoot and Cain toasting marshmallows.

[Vort]

(It should be noted that the idea that Cain is Bigfoot has been thoroughly debunked. Cain actually defeated Bigfoot twice, at UFC 146 and UFC 160.)

[askandanswer]

Based on the title, I think it's about Bigfoot and Cain toasting marshmallows.

 

I have it on good authority that they were Roasting, not toasting, the marshmallows.The outcome is similar but the process is different. :) 

[Rhoades]

Some LDS seem to see General Authorities as infallible rather then men ordained of God. 

Do you know anybody that feels like general authorities are infallible?

[pkstpaul]

When I contributed to the editing of a manuscript for a fictional story of the three Nephites, the author came under fire for making one of them look less then apostolic by expressing a woman could be ugly. His orthodox LDS editors had a fit. How dare make an apostle look as someone who has human traits!  Besides that one scene in the book, the characters were stalward gardians of the gospel.

 

That's how extreme some perceive the infalibility of leaders.

 

I even had a post deleted from this forum for what I presume was my being critical of a local leader, when in fact I only reported something in our daily paper. I really don't think we need to scrub reality to make our leaders look spotless. That makes them unapproachable. 

Edited September 30, 2015 by pkstpaul

[EarlJibbs]

What is the point of this thread?

It appears the point is to be combative? At least that is what I gather from the OP closing words..."Let the stoning begin"

[Traveler]

It is my opinion that the problem lies in not understanding the oath and covenant of the priesthood - and covenants in general.  Doctrine & Covenants 82:10 summarizes how covenants are fulfilled.  Each covenant has a proctor - our current proctor is President Monson.  The covenant is not that President Monson will not ever make mistakes a our president, prophet and proctor.  The promise is that if he does we are not in any way be penalized for following him while he is our proctor.  In essence we are covered.  We may understand the error - even take a separate way and we are still okay as long as we do not disavow the proctor in their station - but then if we error in any way in our separate way we are accountable for covenant breaking.  We also may choose to contact our covenant proctor and advise them of their mistake - but to oppose them as the proctor before the covenant is a sin of treason within G-d's kingdom.

[Guest]

I even had a post deleted from this forum for what I presume was my being critical of a local leader, when in fact I only reported something in our daily paper. I really don't think we need to scrub reality to make our leaders look spotless. That makes them unapproachable. 

 

If you have a problem with a post or moderation issue, it is best (and outlined in the site rules) to either report the offending post, or to take your problem up with a head moderator (estradling or pam). Complaining on a thread is not only ineffective, but it's skirting the rules you agreed to when you registered on this site. This is at least the second time I've seen you do it, which is the reason I'm saying something.  

[pam]

If you have a problem with a post or moderation issue, it is best (and outlined in the site rules) to either report the offending post, or to take your problem up with a head moderator (estradling or pam). Complaining on a thread is not only ineffective, but it's skirting the rules you agreed to when you registered on this site. This is at least the second time I've seen you do it, which is the reason I'm saying something.  

 

John Doe is also a head moderator.

[omegaseamaster75]

There is a contingent that take what a GA says in general conference and think that it is cannon or close to it. There is a contingent that will not see error in past prophets writings, speeches or actions. 

 

That contingent is alive and well on this board. Frankly I am surprised by some who have responded to the OP 

[Rhoades]

When I contributed to the editing of a manuscript for a fictional story of the three Nephites, the author came under fire for making one of them look less then apostolic by expressing a woman could be ugly. His orthodox LDS editors had a fit. How dare make an apostle look as someone who has human traits!  Besides that one scene in the book, the characters were stalward gardians of the gospel.

 

That's how extreme some perceive the infalibility of leaders.

 

Why would you assume the editors thought apostles were infallible?  Perhaps they simply didn't want the faults pointed out. There's a big difference between the two.  For example, a school text book editor might not want to include some purported faults of Christopher Columbus.  That doesn't necessarily mean he thought Columbus didn't have any faults.  Whether or not specific faults should be included is a whole different topic of discussion.

 

You didn't say, but if the setting of the story was while they were in their changed state (as opposed to regular mortal state), that could further influence how they'd want them portrayed.

[estradling75]

There is a contingent that take what a GA says in general conference and think that it is cannon or close to it. There is a contingent that will not see error in past prophets writings, speeches or actions. 

 

That contingent is alive and well on this board. Frankly I am surprised by some who have responded to the OP 

 

You forgot the contingent that understands that idea of sustaining our leaders (past, present, Local, or General) does not have a "Only if you think they are right" rider attached to it.

[pam]

I'm with TFP.  I just don't get the point of this thread.

[Guest]

Sorry, john doe. Of course. 

 

 

Mark me as another who doesn't get the point.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I appreciate Average Joe's post/thread.  Although we give lip service to the idea that our leaders are not perfect, when it comes down to it, we don't really seem to believe it.  I think the whole issue is understandable, but complicated. For example, we've been warned that criticizing our leaders is the first step on the road to apostasy.  And we have all raised our hand and committed to sustain them.  We have been counseled against murmuring.  So where is there room in all of that to accept human frailty?  I'm not complaining, I've ceased expecting things to be easy--whether in the gospel or in life.  This life is messy, and I'm learning to live with questions and uncertainty.  That said, I think Average Joe's reminder is an important one.

 

The Crucible of Doubt by Terryl and Fiona Givens has a whole chapter on this topic, Chapter 5 On Prophecy and Prophets: The Perils of Hero Worship.  Here are a few salient quotes:

 

"Dostoevsky believed that 'man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find as quickly as possible someone to worship."   Fyodor Dostoesky, The Brothers Karamazov

 

In 1945, a church magazine wrote, " 'When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.' Many are familiar with that expression; fewer are aware that when President George Albert Smith learned of it, he immediately and indignantly repudiated the statement. 'Even to imply that members of the church are not to do their own thinking,' he wrote, 'is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the church.' "  (The offensive statement was published in The Improvement Era June 1945, Smith responded in a letter to J. Raymond Cope, a Unitarian leader who expressed concern. Dialogue 19.1 (Spring 1986): 35-39)

 

"The scriptures themselves, even as they paint inspiring pictures of the faithfulness of God's chosen leaders, are surpassingly frank about their foibles.)

 

"As Lorenzo Sonw wisely noted, 'I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him for I knew that I myself had weakness[es], and I thought there was a chance for me.' "  In Maxwell, "Out of Obscurity," 10.

 

"A second reason for God's choice of fallible leaders is simply this: He has no other kind."

 

"Airbrushing our leaders, past or present, is both a wrenching of the scriptural record and a form of idolatry.  It generates an accurate paradigm that creates false expectations and disappointment.  God specifically said that He called weak vessels so we wouldn't place our faith in their strength or power, but in God's.  The prophetic mantle represents priesthood keys, not a level of holiness or infallibility.  That is why our scripturally mandated duty to the prophets and apostles is not to idolize them but to uphold and sustain them 'by the power of faith.' "   (reference for power of faith D&C 43:12)

 

 

The Crucible of Doubt is published by Deseret Book.  This book did so much to strengthen and buoy up my testimony when I needed it.  I'm very grateful to the Givens for this and their other book, The God Who Weeps.  It is in large part thanks to their writings that I'm not lost in the mists of darkness.  

Edited September 30, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[omegaseamaster75]

You forgot the contingent that understands that idea of sustaining our leaders (past, present, Local, or General) does not have a "Only if you think they are right" rider attached to it.

Last I checked we never sustained past leadership. This thread has nothing to do with the sustaining of leadership. 

 

hindsight is 20/20, we can see the errors but for some reason get lambasted when we point them out.

[estradling75]

I appreciate Average Joe's post/thread.  Although we give lip service to the idea that our leaders are not perfect, when it comes down to it, we don't really seem to believe it.  I think the whole issue is understandable, but complicated. For example, we've been warned that criticizing our leaders is the first step on the road to apostasy.  And we have all raised our hand and committed to sustain them.  We have been counseled against murmuring.  So where is there room in all of that to accept human frailty?

 

The problem isn't that there isn't that you can't accept human frailty in our leaders... The problem is that such people rarely stop there.  The very next step after that is Fixing what we think/assume our leaders screwed up.

 

That can be all kinds of wrong.  Many who wish to hold the line against that step get labeled as all kinds of nasty names and accused of worshiping our leaders rather then the Lord.

Edited September 30, 2015 by estradling75

[Guest]

Should I write out a list of every error, mistake, sin in my past, and in my husband's, and in my family's, so that you can all be sure to know we aren't perfect? 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

The problem isn't that there isn't that you can't accept human frailty in our leaders... The problem is that such people rarely stop there.  The very next step after that is Fixing what we think/assume our leaders screwed up.

 

And continuing to that step is all kinds of wrong.  Many who wish to hold the line against that step get labeled as all kinds of nasty names and accused of worshiping our leaders rather then the Lord.

 

I agree with you -that - is a huge problem.  Such people sometimes make the news, like Kate Kelly and John Dehlin.

 

 But opposite, hero worship, can also be problematic, and we rarely talk about that side of the issue.  And those who mention that get labeled as all kinds of nasty names and accused of worshipping our leaders rather than the Lord.

 

As for me...I try to worry only about my own behavior...I question MY actions, and MY thoughts.  We all know how it feels to be judged, that should be sufficient motivation to stop it.  I shared those quotes because as I said, that book was very helpful for ME in buoying up my testimony, and it is possible that they will be helpful to someone else who is struggling in the same way.  Notice my intent was to help not judge.  

Edited September 30, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest]

What does hero worship look like?