To me his talk was more of the same BS. Chalk it up as another way of saying "the church is perfect the people are not". Nothing new, nothing groundbreaking. I think that people are reading into it WAY too much. And if you have doubts his recommendation is still: find something to repent or, and double down on your book of Mormon reading.
The only difference here is that it was meant to make people believe that the church was coming clean.
The part that was left out of that little trial balloon is that yes you may consider that mistakes were made, but you may not voice those ideas to the membership. You know, just like last year and the years before that.
You're right. People have commented on the contradiction between this talk and all the others, like Oaks's which said that the church's doctrines are perfect and unchanging. People were surprised by the contradiction.
But this is precisely how the church does things. It plants a single talk or article between others saying what the church would like the members to believe. If they later have to change their position, they then go back and cite the outlier speech, claiming that "we've always said that." It's like that article in the Ensign in 1992 or 1993 that acknowledged the stone in the hat. Now the church says "our history is an open book."
I found Dieter's speech interesting because outliers like that tell us what the Q15 are worrying about. The church clearly wants an option to admit that "mistakes were made" in case the exodus continues. Their preferred strategy is to continue acting infallible, but they evidently recognize that that may not be possible over the long run.
There is no way that speech was not vetted at the highest level--meaning the PR firms.
I'm beginning to wonder if they're running *anything* by their top-notch PR firms these days. It's all been very topsy-turvy ever since Romney made his recent run for President. Since the 80's & 90s, they've maintained a slick public image due to the work of their PR firms and now it's all over the place.
Wasn't it at the April conference that they announced a kinder and gentler approach to the gays within the ranks and even started a support website of some sort? This came on the heels of the Prop. 8 debacle. And now just six months later, they've taken a rather hardline stance against gay marriage in the Oct. Conference.
Last Oct. the message was "Ask a Missionary!" and this Oct. it seemed to be "Come back and repent." They just seem to be reacting to the newest fire without giving much thought to the future implications, IMO.
1) doesn't seem particularly fair that members in the past have been excommunicated for saying the same thing - and backing up their arguments with official documents and references.
2) how will the general membership react when NOM-type members express the same thing in lessons?
3) Can TSCC now get over the 'church is perfect' line? Surely it's nonsensical to hold this position yet admit that leaders have made mistakes. The leaders, their views, doctrines, actions and examples define the church.
4) what specifically are the mistakes that Uchtdorf is referring to? By leaving this so vague, they're just asking for trouble.
5) shouldn't the 15 have a duty of care to now explain to the membership what these mistakes were, less any members falter in their understanding or interpretation?
6) I doubt that any member has ever expected the 15 and other leaders to be absolutely perfect - that isn't the point at all - but they do rightly expect these 'special witnesses' to tell the truth, make Christ-like decisions and speak for God when talking in conference and other official capacities.
7) "doubt your doubts" = keep believing in Father Christmas despite the clear opposite evidence.
8) how many of the female membership (and some males) committed adultery in their hearts while watching him speak?
...another potential backfire could occur here as rank and file members ask the magic question: "What mistakes?...that's crap! There's never been a prophet who would do that! I'm gonna' check that out.....oh oh.
"Hey, Bishop, see, it says it right here in the Journal of Discourses.................see, SEE"?
Saying that there were mistakes will enable individual members to reconcile their feelings about particular issues with the proposition that the church is true. Listing those mistakes, however, would 1) upset anyone who was worried about something else, 2) discredit the church generally, and 3) embarrass the church if it had later to add to the list. By not saying what the errors were, the church leaves the usual standards in place and can excommunicate anyone it wants. It can also still say that members cannot publicly discuss what they think the mistakes were.
Catholics claim the pope is infallible but no one really believes that. Mormons say their leaders are fallible but don't dare give specific examples.
Yes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They'll never describe the actual mistakes. > > Saying that there were mistakes will enable > individual members to reconcile their feelings > about particular issues with the proposition that > the church is true. Listing those mistakes, > however, would 1) upset anyone who was worried > about something else, 2) discredit the church > generally, and 3) embarrass the church if it had > later to add to the list. By not saying what the > errors were, the church leaves the usual standards > in place and can excommunicate anyone it wants. It > can also still say that members cannot publicly > discuss what they think the mistakes were. > > Catholics claim the pope is infallible but no one > really believes that. Mormons say their leaders > are fallible but don't dare give specific > examples.
Well said.
A "mistake" is when I pick up your car keys instead of my own or transpose a couple of numbers.
Coercing a young girl into a sexual relationship, marrying the wives of your friends, deceiving your wife.....those are NOT "mistakes", they are evidence of your character.