Enough of the Infalliblity Nonsense

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't doubt that many people in the church feel the way you just described, but I would hardly think they are a majority of the active members. If you were to pose a question to most Mormons about what percentage of the time the prophet is correct, what percent would you guess they come up with? Do you really think it may be as low as 60%?

The numbers aren't important to me (I stole them from my friend, Frank McIntyre example, although the second part was my addition to his model). I just wanted to illustrate that behaving as if the prophet is infallible can be part of a reflective and thoughtful faith. I think its important to note that about the conservative posters on the board.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The church leaders themselves have stated many things that strongly suggest the prophet is infallible (and not just "more likely than the average human to get it right").

Maybe but True to the Faith says, "Your greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets." I think that statement is perfectly consistent with the spirit of the model.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

hey Pelagius, show us the link to the graphical representation again.

I like that model too ... even though it argues that opposite. Its a fun one but, of course not without its flaws.

[MikeWaters]

The HUGE problem with Pelagius' model is that he seems to think it is ok to define "infallible" as 60% and not 100%.

That just doesn't square with the terminology.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So I have big-time problems with the idea that one should just obey and not consider whether it is wise to accept the counsel.

I'm not talking completely blind obedience and no consideration to what the counsel is. To me it's pretty simple. If I receive counsel from a leader (at whatever level) and my gut reaction is I don't think it's right, there are one of two things I can do:

1. Blow it off ... say it's stupid ... dig into why leaders are not infallible, etc.
2. Prayerfully consider WHY I reacted that way and try to figure out why the counsel will benefit me. Fake it 'til I make it in some cases. Decide if it's really going to hurt me to follow the counsel or am I just being stubborn ... etc.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The HUGE problem with Pelagius' model is that he seems to think it is ok to define "infallible" as 60% and not 100%.

That just doesn't square with the terminology.

In fact I could argue that if you think the prophet is only right 95% of the time, you are far from the mainstream in the church.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think, it can be argued, that many members believe the data line to heaven has changed from Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson.

That is, they might have more confidence that something unsettling from JS was true, while less certain that something TM said was true.

I think this is a large reason for the difference in faith in for example, me and you.

I believe the opposite. I believe things are more correct now in the church than ever. I look at it like God gives a little at a time, and Joseph had to "make up" a lot of stuff because he was creating a new church where everything on the table was suddenly negotiable. God maybe gave him a little and Joseph maybe thought he was getting more than he really got. As God gave little by little over time the cumulative revelation is increasing. So you squirm over Pres. Hinckley saying we don't know much about "as man is God once was, etc." or over polygamy being rejected completely by modern church, where I see it as part of an evolution towards God's complete truth.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think, it can be argued, that many members believe the data line to heaven has changed from Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson.

That is, they might have more confidence that something unsettling from JS was true, while less certain that something TM said was true.

I have no doubt that all of this is true. Its equivalent to saying people have different Bayesian priors and sometimes they are not very thoughtful priors.. I'm on board with that ... Mine is not an apologetic for crazy priors.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The HUGE problem with Pelagius' model is that he seems to think it is ok to define "infallible" as 60% and not 100%.

That just doesn't square with the terminology.

No it doesn't. He clearly states that conservative members ACT as those the prophet is infallible (not changing the word's definition) but in fact do not believe it. He then explains whyt such actioj is reasonable. He does not define infallibility as menaing being correct 60% of the time.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Most of the time.

But in a lot of the most contentious or controversial cases, it is when a member is asked to obey a local church leader.

For example, I believe the men that followed their leaders during the MMM, eventually came to deeply regret that decision. I don't think they felt blessed at all.

So I have big-time problems with the idea that one should just obey and not consider whether it is wise to accept the counsel.

Another example would be if a member is asked to give more time than he feels is wise to church service at the sacrifice of his family.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The HUGE problem with Pelagius' model is that he seems to think it is ok to define "infallible" as 60% and not 100%.

That just doesn't square with the terminology.

No I don't ... I very clearly don't do that ... [see creekster's comment]