Enough of the Infalliblity Nonsense

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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.

JS does not come across to me as a CEO working with a board of trustees.

I think a lot of people believe the church is on cruise control, for decades now.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

The problem is, you (and pellagius) have it backwards. Conservative members act how they really feel, but claim to believe the prophet's infallible (example: how many mullahs on here have seen an R-rated movie?).

I like pellagius' model, but I actually think it represents the liberal mormon's view, i.e. they don't think the prophet's infallible, but he's right more often than not (or at least more often than they are), so they go along (even though they may not be 100% sure about the direction of the church).

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

JS does not come across to me as a CEO working with a board of trustees.

I think a lot of people believe the church is on cruise control, for decades now.

Take these three assumptions:

1. God gives very direct revelation and intervention on extremely important matters.

2. The prophet has to run things and lead on many issues and doctrines knowing he's only going to get God's direct revelation on occasion and for only certain matters.

3. Even the prophet is not totally sure when he's getting direct revelation or when he's required to run things by the hip.


So, given that (and we could argue these assumptions but that's how I see God working), and given the massive changes in the church from JS to now as far as demographics and size, how could it be much differen than it is?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Those are two very different things. As to the 2nd, is that really all that surprising given that prophet after prophet after prophet has said it?

What are the relative odds of any given member, orthodox or not, disagreeing with a doctrine that has been repeated by multiple prophets over decades of church leadership?

That would depend. Is each successive prophet repeating what they heard from a previous prophet or is each successive prophet claiming that they also received revelation that the statement was true? If the former, then the odds should be identical. If the latter, you would expect the odds to be lower.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

The problem is, you (and pellagius) have it backwards. Conservative members act how they really feel, but claim to believe the prophet's infallible (example: how many mullahs on here have seen an R-rated movie?).

I like pellagius' model, but I actually think it represents the liberal mormon's view, i.e. they don't think the prophet's infallible, but he's right more often than not (or at least more often than they are), so they go along (even though they may not be 100% sure about the direction of the church).

I agree. I think Pellagius has summed up the active liberal contingent's view nicely. I think the majority conservative position is much different.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

The problem is, you (and pellagius) have it backwards. Conservative members act how they really feel, but claim to believe the prophet's infallible (example: how many mullahs on here have seen an R-rated movie?).

I like pellagius' model, but I actually think it represents the liberal mormon's view, i.e. they don't think the prophet's infallible, but he's right more often than not (or at least more often than they are), so they go along (even though they may not be 100% sure about the direction of the church).

I was defedning the model and trying to clarify a mistatement about it. Pelagius can defend it better than me, but it strikes me that you may be missing his point. He is not trying to exclusively define why or how any given memebr or even group of members act, but he is explaining how acting as though the prophet is infallible is not unreasonable, even if you believe he is fallible. The rest can be argued about, I suppose.

As for me, I think the model is a pretty good descirpotion of many poeple I know and is justified by instructions we have received from the pulpit in GC. Just MO.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

The problem is, you (and pellagius) have it backwards. Conservative members act how they really feel, but claim to believe the prophet's infallible (example: how many mullahs on here have seen an R-rated movie?).

I like pellagius' model, but I actually think it represents the liberal mormon's view, i.e. they don't think the prophet's infallible, but he's right more often than not (or at least more often than they are), so they go along (even though they may not be 100% sure about the direction of the church).

I don't want to have to defend who it actually applies to but judging by Indy's reaction to it earlier I would guess that it approximates the approach of at least some of the the more conservative members of the board. That said it isn't per say a model about liberals or conservatives. Its really a model that rationalizes why it may be optimal to behave as if the prophet is inffallible when you don't believe he actually is. Plus, I am glad you liked the model.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

The problem is, you (and pellagius) have it backwards. Conservative members act how they really feel, but claim to believe the prophet's infallible (example: how many mullahs on here have seen an R-rated movie?).

I like pellagius' model, but I actually think it represents the liberal mormon's view, i.e. they don't think the prophet's infallible, but he's right more often than not (or at least more often than they are), so they go along (even though they may not be 100% sure about the direction of the church).

That is freaking sick.

People going along with something they are not socially required to, just in case it could possibly be what God wants?

How freaking S A D of a life is that?

Is that truly what you believe the "liberal" mo mo thinks about the direction of the church?

That is completely messed up.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That would depend. Is each successive prophet repeating what they heard from a previous prophet or is each successive prophet claiming that they also received revelation that the statement was true? If the former, then the odds should be identical. If the latter, you would expect the odds to be lower.

It was a rhetorical question. The point is, no member should be faulted for believing a doctrine taught so often by so many different prophets through time.

[pelagius]

Okay, I would probably model Waters and Adam more like the following:

Let

X = the set of all information useful and relevant to decide whether option A or B is correct.

Y = the set of all information used by the FPQ12 to decide whether option A or B is correct.

Z = the set of all information used by individual i to decide whether option A or B is correct.

FPQ12 suggest option A is correct and individual $i$ suggests option B is correct.

If Z=Y=X, then

P(FPQ12=correct|X) > P(i=correct|X) (1)

Most of the time Y not equal X and Z not equal X then

P(FPQ12=correct|Y) > P(i=correct|Z) (2)

However Waters argues that sometimes (if the options have to do with civil rights, woman rights, or gay rights) then,

P(FPQ12=correct|Y) less than P(i=correct|Z) (3)

That would be my "Liberal" model although my guess is that conservatives wouldn't object to it in principle. Liberals and conservatives would argue over high hard it is to identify situations like 3 from an ex ante perspective.