Mormon Mythology

[estradling75]

Yes, I definitely agree with this.

 

Which makes it very likely we both understand the two sides pretty similarly.  I would then suspect that differences between us are really more in just our individual trigger points on when we pick up a side to defend/promote

[EarlJibbs]

This is where I think my own thoughts are going.  People want to talk so much about the negative but what about the wonderful things these men (listed in the OP) did as well?   Especially when many of them returned to activity and membership in the Church.  

 

Personally I hope when I'm gone that I'm remembered for the good things I did.  Not have my faults brought up over 100 years from now.

Agreed. Are my sins not shameful and despising? For me, I know some people that have been excommunicated that made/are making their way back and I think they are wonderful. Not everyone that is excommunicated is an apostate, anti-Mormon and not trustworthy.... I would love to see the same list showing who was re-baptized. 

 

I think, in general, most of us love a success story. But there are some cannot help themselves to the drama of someone else's mistakes and misery. This isn't a political arena where you make a mistake and you are out. All of a sudden, you cannot be trusted in the least because of your sins?

[MrShorty]

This is one of the more interesting essays I have seen written on prophetic fallibility from a faithful LDS perspective: http://www.patheos.com/Mormon/Living-with-Fallibility-James-E-Faulconer-11-21-2014

 

As I have seen it, whichever side of the "LDS leaders are always right/wrong" dichotomy, in some ways, I feel that anyone who takes either extreme is failing to really undertake the challenge of discernment. As I see it, prophets speak:

 

1) Eternal gospel truth.

2) Wise counsel that may be rooted in eternal truths but is not eternal nor universal truth.

3) Error born from the inevitable error of human judgement.

 

and any categories you want to put in between. I believe that God wants us each to really exercise our own discernment and not simply accept another's prounouncements. Thus, to borrow a concept from King Mosiah, we become responsible for our own sins and iniquities and righteousness and goodness.

 

One of the challenges is to make sure that anything we choose to be in error does not poison our view so that we cannot see the truths and wisdom that come from the same source. I think this is how this idea becomes the first step towards apostasy. But, I also believe that such discernment, when done correctly, does not need to lead down that road to apostasy.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Which makes it very likely we both understand the two sides pretty similarly. I would then suspect that differences between us are really more in just our individual trigger points on when we pick up a side to defend/promote

Yes, I agree with this too. I particularly like what you said about individual trigger points. Tis true, I think that can be applied to many discussions that occur here and in other places. Good point.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

This is one of the more interesting essays I have seen written on prophetic fallibility from a faithful LDS perspective: http://www.patheos.com/Mormon/Living-with-Fallibility-James-E-Faulconer-11-21-2014

One of the challenges is to make sure that anything we choose to be in error does not poison our view so that we cannot see the truths and wisdom that come from the same source. I think this is how this idea becomes the first step towards apostasy. But, I also believe that such discernment, when done correctly, does not need to lead down that road to apostasy.

I agree with you that taking either side to an extreme is dangerous. I find that idea applies to many things, but I don't want to say everything because that would be extreme. :)

I particularly like your last paragraph. That is a good addition to my own understanding of this issue. I had been thinking along those lines but couldn't have worded it so succinctly.

[pkstpaul]

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.  

It wasn't a complaint; just an observation.

[The Folk Prophet]

I recall a talk by Jack Christiansen (sp?) once where he told about meeting the prophet (I believe E.T. Benson) and the opportunity to give him a hug (if I'm recalling the story correctly) and in doing so he noticed how the prophet had missed a spot shaving. And he told us this story with tears in his eyes. 

 

I remember thinking then, what on earth is the point of this and why is it important to know that the prophet doesn't shave perfectly?

 

I simply cannot understand how we are made better by pointing out how imperfect our prophets and apostles are and were.

[The Folk Prophet]

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. 

 

A) Prove it. How can you possibly speak for all other Mormons that we don't really seem to believe it and that it's only "lip service?"

 

B) So what?

 

So where is there room in all of that to accept human frailty?

 

To what end?

 

That said, I think Average Joe's reminder is an important one.

 

How? Why? Why is it "important" to be reminded of this?

 

The rest of your post presumes something that isn't a given. "Hero worship". Not publicly pointing out all the flaws in men we respect does not equate to hero worship.

 

Moreover, and more importantly, most of the so-called "flaws" pointed out in men (particularly historically) are biased incomplete perceptions that are put upon them by others and cannot and should not be trusted as valid. It is, ultimately, an example of unrighteous judgment to determine their "flaws" at such a distance.

Edited September 30, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

A) Prove it. How can you possibly speak for all other Mormons that we don't really seem to believe it and that it's only "lip service?"

 

B) So what?

 

 

To what end?

 

 

How? Why? Why is it "important" to be reminded of this?

 

The rest of your post presumes something that isn't a given. "Hero worship". Not publicly pointing out all the flaws in men we respect does not equate to hero worship.

 

Moreover, and more importantly, most of the so-called "flaws" pointed out in men (particularly historically) are biased incomplete perceptions that are put upon them by others and cannot and should not be trusted as valid. It is, ultimately, an example of unrighteous judgment to determine their "flaws" at such a distance.

A) lip service

 

Clearly since the Givens dedicated a whole chapter in their book to this, they think it is important, and Deseret Book published this book without editing that chapter out, other Mormons share my view.

 

B) to what end?

 

Maybe you should ask the Givens or people at Deseret Book why they felt it was important to address this issue.  Why do you think they chose to do so?

 

If you read the whole thread, I think my position on why it is important to discussion this topic was fleshed out well enough in my discussion with Estradling.  Why do you think we should not discuss it?  

 

"The rest of your post presumes something that isn't a given. "Hero worship". Not publicly pointing out all the flaws in men we respect does not equate to hero worship."

 

Again, perhaps you should take this up with the Givens and Deseret Book since all those quotes including the first one about hero worship come from that book. 

 

"Moreover, and more importantly, most of the so-called "flaws" pointed out in men (particularly historically) are biased incomplete perceptions that are put upon them by others and cannot and should not be trusted as valid. It is, ultimately, an example of unrighteous judgment to determine their "flaws" at such a distance."

 

For me this proves my point about lip service, but likely you will disagree.  But an example is again the one I mentioned to Estradling...the comments Miracle of Forgiveness about homosexuality which do NOT represent that current views of our leaders on this matter.  

[Just_A_Guy]

Honest question:

 

What does "hero-worship" even mean; and what examples of it do we see in modern society?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Honest question:

What does "hero-worship" even mean; and what examples of it do we see in modern society?

I would love to hear other people's responses too. For me it means putting someone on a pedestal so high that you almost forget they are human.

This often occurs with sports figures. I think the whole Sandusky and Paterno thing is a great example. Soany people refused to accept the truth about these men when it was presented to them because of this hero worship.

[The Folk Prophet]

... Givens dedicated a whole chapter....

 

Well clearly, if Givens said so...it must be accurate. It's settled then.

 

All praise our new prophet, Givens!

[Guest]

 

All praise our new prophet, Givens!

 

 

Don't you dare. We must not praise people! 

[The Folk Prophet]

If you read the whole thread, I think my position on why it is important to discussion this topic was fleshed out well enough in my discussion with Estradling. 

 

Incidentally...still reading.... Will have more to say, I'm sure.

[Vort]

This often occurs with sports figures. I think the whole Sandusky and Paterno thing is a great example. Soany people refused to accept the truth about these men when it was presented to them because of this hero worship.

 

What exactly do you think was the "truth" about Joe Paterno?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Well clearly, if Givens said so...it must be accurate. It's settled then.

All praise our new prophet, Givens!

Thanks for reminding me why I don't like to discuss anything with you.

I mentioned the Givens as evidence that someone besides me holds that opinion. And their opinion likely stems from conversations and observations they have had which means others feel the same.

You ignored the point about the editors at Deseret. . .apparently your sarcasm and caustic remarks don't extend to them.

As I told Estradling75, Im not interested in debate but dialogue. You are clearly more interested in debate. That's fine you are good at it. But it's not what I'm looking for.

[estradling75]

If you read the whole thread, I think my position on why it is important to discussion this topic was fleshed out well enough in my discussion with Estradling.  Why do you think we should not discuss it?  

 

 

 

I know he can speak for himself... But since you mentioned me... I would have thought that our discussion would have laid out the why.

 

You feel we need to discuss it because some people might be helped with the reminder that our leaders are human...  Many of us (including myself) are aware that dwelling on people's faults tends to alienate us from the people whose faults we are dwelling on.  We do not wish to (and you agreed) alienate people from God's leaders.

 

So what does this thread do more of Help or Alienate?  That is something we simply have no facts on, but it is likely doing both. If we think that help should be individualized in nature and trying to avoid offense should be generalized... Then this whole thread is doing the exact opposite.

Edited September 30, 2015 by estradling75

[The Folk Prophet]

Thanks for reminding me why I don't like to discuss anything with you.

 

No sense of humor. *sigh*. Too bad.

 

I apologize then since you didn't seem to take it the way I meant it.

 

I mentioned the Givens as evidence that someone besides me holds that opinion. And their opinion likely stems from conversations and observations they have had which means others feel the same.

 

Isn't the obvious point I'm trying to make that people's opinions are like...what was the joke...everyone has one and they all stink...

 

You ignored the point about the editors at Deseret. . .apparently your sarcasm and caustic remarks don't extend to them.

 

If you recall my post about Deseret Book publishing In Quiet Desperation, you should get an idea of how well I respect the editors at Deseret Book as authorities. So, yes, my "sarcasm and caustic remarks" to extend to them.

 

As I told Estradling75, Im not interested in debate but dialogue. You are clearly more interested in debate. That's fine you are good at it. But it's not what I'm looking for.

 

In other words any dialogue that disagrees with you is off limits then?

 

Okay. Don't reply to me then.

Edited September 30, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

What exactly do you think was the "truth" about Joe Paterno?

Why did he get fired from Penn State? I think you know the answer.

[Vort]

Why did he get fired from Penn State? I think you know the answer.

Indeed I do. But that does not answer my question. What was "the truth" about Joe Paterno?

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm talking about people like Josh Weed. When he realized that he had same sex attraction and read The Miracle of Forgiveness, it was excruciatingly painful to him. He didn't go on a crusade to condemn the church. He suffered quietly. His dad fortunately gave him sage advice that our leaders are not perfect, only Christ was perfect.

 

This is one highly biased, and although popular, highly suspect philosophy. It presumed a whole bunch of stuff about Josh Weed and the like as factual when in fact it may not be factual at all. It presumes, without any consideration otherwise, that because of current trends that President Kimball was wrong on the matter. It takes the word of those who claim truth based on personal experience and emotion over the teachings of our prophets and apostles.

 

I don't see any compelling reason to just fold, bow down and worship public opinion, philosophy, and politically correct ideologies on the say so of emotional anecdote.

 

I don't consider the idea that any time someone is struggling with something one of our prophet's or apostles said we should advise them that the answer is simply that our leaders are fallible any kind of sage whatsoever.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

No sense of humor. *sigh*. Too bad.

I apologize then since you didn't seem to take it the way I meant it.

Isn't the obvious point I'm trying to make that people's opinions are like...what was the joke...everyone has one and they all stink...

If you recall my post about Deseret Book publishing In Quiet Desperation, you should get an idea of how well I respect the editors at Deseret Book as authorities. So, yes, my "sarcasm and caustic remarks" to extend to them.

In other words any dialogue that disagrees with you is off limits then?

Okay. Don't reply to me then.

Quiet Desperation??? Is that another thread? I don't read all of your posts...

Disagreement is not the problem. Notice that I had a long conversation with Estradling75.

The reason I don't want to discuss things with you is I don't like the tone you use. Maybe is simply that I don't get your humor or perhaps there is some other misunderstanding between us, I don't really know.

Post what you like, of course. I'm just trying to give you the courtesy of explaining why I don't plan to continue this conversation.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Indeed I do. But that does not answer my question. What was "the truth" about Joe Paterno?

What is your point? I'm certain you know just what I meant.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Then this whole thread is doing the exact opposite.

How so?

[The Folk Prophet]

Quiet Desperation??? Is that another thread? I don't read all of your posts...

 

http://lds.net/forums/topic/57579-the-decline-of-declaring-repentance/

 

The reason I don't want to discuss things with you is I don't like the tone you use. 

 

If you're going to make and take things personally, then we're not going to get too far, I agree. If you'd respond to the point -- how is the fact that someone wrote a book published by Deseret Book proof of anything -- then maybe we could actually learn from each other. You're taking it personally is what has shut down the dialogue.

 

Maybe is simply that I don't get your humor or perhaps there is some other misunderstanding between us, I don't really know.

 

The misunderstanding seems to me that you read something in a book that resonated with you and feel like that's some sort of proof positive of it's value. I disagree and that seems to bug you.

 

Post what you like, of course. I'm just trying to give you the courtesy of explaining why I don't plan to continue this conversation.

 

I don't consider being told how much you dislike speaking to me courteous. Would anyone really consider that courteous?