The generations up to mine were heavily taught that if the leaders prophesie wrong or led people astray the church could not be true (which makes sense - if Joseph smith could be wrong about one revelation who is to say he wasn't wrong about the first revelation to restore the church).

BUT the new generations are being taught that leaders make mistakes. This is dangerous because if the church buries all of its historical quotes and teachings BY PROPHETS THEMSELVES that everything the prophet says is the word of God then the new generations will not see any contradictions and will have a harder time understanding that this church is built on a fraud.

Retention could grow but without losing a lot of the harmful aspects of the culture and rules/commandments/policies.

Is anyone else seeing this or worrying about it?

That part in the recently mentioned trib article about "inoculating" future generations from historical controversies at the cost of losing members today has been mentioned many times before. It's actually diabolical imho. I mean that literally - it feels evil. And it sounds kind of skeeZy. If this were gods true church (which we here have learned it is not) why would these kinds of campaigns even be needed?

And would God really only be able to come up with a plan that sacrifices one group of people for another ? I mean that's what this idea is essentially conveying - that group X would stay if they didn't publish controversies and group y would stay if they did. I thought it was supposed to be about individuals and also about truth, not appeasing people? I worry others won't see through this.

I think it's a good thing they're taught that leaders make mistakes, because they do. No human on this earth is perfect. What bothers me is that they're encouraged to support and follow leaders even when they do make mistakes. Look, everyone knows that Thomas Monson is full of shit at this point. The only real question is whether or not they want to continue to put up with it. Tscc stresses obedience over critical thinking and common sense. That's the real problem.

They should be honest about church history and all the various ways in which leaders have fucked up, but that would allow members to make their own decisions about whether or not they want to stay and believe, and tscc can't have people thinking for themselves.

They're more concerned with their public image than they are truth or compassion. What does that tell you?

Where does mormon ghawd fit into the equation?

I've yet to read an explanation supplied by ghawd and supplied to a prophet for why he, mormon ghawd, let the Blacks stew outside the priesthood garden when no such exclusion ought to have existed. I get that social elements supplied the necessary impetus, but why didn't ghawd correct it within just a couple of years?

Of course my answer is that there is no mormon ghawd. And it would seem that mormons are more forgiving of mormon ghawd than he is of them.

Amen to that ending sentence! (What is the atheist version of amen?)

And yes I agree with your other comment too.

"I've yet to read an explanation supplied by ghawd and supplied to a prophet for why he, mormon ghawd, let the Blacks stew outside the priesthood garden when no such exclusion ought to have existed. I get that social elements supplied the necessary impetus, but why didn't ghawd correct it within just a couple of years?"

That's a question I asked myself early on when I was studying my way out of the church. Think about all the "revelations" in the D&C: God instructs Joseph Smith on such mundane issues as where to send missionaries and how to sell stock to fund the building of the Nauvoo House. But God can't take 30 seconds to correct Joseph Smith's incorrect teachings about the curse of Cain, Ham, the origin of Negroes, etc.?

The church's recently-published essay on race and the priesthood states that the curse of Cain teaching and the priesthood ban were the product of false, racist ideas: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life..."

Seeing as how it was the church's leaders who taught those false ideas from the 1830s up until 1978---and they weren't officially disavowed until the essay was published just a couple of years ago---that means that the church admits that their past leaders who taught such ideas were not in communion with any God throughout all that time. And that means that Mormonism's claims of having a "living prophet" are bogus.

"IMO: they are not taught that the leaders make mistakes. They are taught that earlier leaders made mistakes. They are then taught that the current leaders do not make mistakes."

True, and 30-40 years from now, Mormons will be taught that the leaders of today (2015) made mistakes (such as discriminating against gays), and those future Mormons will be taught that the leaders of their day don't make mistakes. That's assuming that Mormonism still exists 30-40 years from now.

It means they admit to teaching scriptures mingled with the philosophies of men. That in itself should be a huge red flag to all members with recommends.

"Why didn't ghawd correct it within just a couple of years?"

True. Justice delayed is justice denied. And please note when we say "blacks" are now allowed the priesthood, we are forgetting half the black population, called black women.

OP, I think your concern is valid. "We screw up, but obey anyway, even if you think we're wrong."

Insert lots of ugly historical reference, to leaders of any sort of faction, with this policy.

It's a never-ending licence to enforce whatever damaging of-the-moment dictate they choose. Like a caliphate, sans the beheadings. In mainstream Christianity, the scriptures are finalized; leaders impose differing doctrines, and members argue, go public, vote with their dollars and feet. Mormanism is somewhere in between the two. Can anyone name a mainstream Christian religion that has a "police" force to control individual member behavior?

Their leadership is patterned on control, not Christ. Maybe they're doing the math of a paradigm shift, but I'd be very cynical about that. Nix the annual counting of the coin for Christ's sake? I'll believe it when I see it.

Yes I guess put another way my concern is that the morg is becoming smarter at manipulation and may have caught on to a way to keep future members ensnared in their cogdis propaganda - I think their plan to "inoculate" against controversies could work. And they are playing a long con now with it - potentially sacrifice a large portion of the current herd to put into place information that protects the next litter from the same type/source of fallout.

IMO: they are not taught that the leaders make mistakes. They are taught that earlier leaders made mistakes. They are then taught that the current leaders do not make mistakes. And most Mormons are perfectly OK with that.

"IMO: they are not taught that the leaders make mistakes. They are taught that earlier leaders made mistakes. They are then taught that the current leaders do not make mistakes."

True, and 30-40 years from now, Mormons will be taught that the leaders of today (2015) made mistakes (such as discriminating against gays), and those future Mormons will be taught that the leaders of their day don't make mistakes. That's assuming that Mormonism still exists 30-40 years from now.

What drives me nuts is that Mormons and their leaders love to dismiss any and all problems in Mormonism with "but we never claimed the leaders were perfect," yet they almost never point out when they aren't perfect.

I really would love to for them to point out where each prophet was wrong.

"they almost never point out when they aren't perfect.

"I really would love to for them to point out where each prophet was wrong."

The most inane, hypocritical statement I know of on this subject was in Bruce R. McDonkey's letter to Eugene England:

http://www.mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-rebuke-of-eugene-england

McDonkey admitted that Brigham Young taught false doctrine:

"Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him...Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in his instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward."

So, according to McDonkey, Brigham Young could teach false doctrine, and still "go on to his eternal reward." But in his next sentence, McDonkey tells England:

"What he [Young] did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us."

So, according to McDonkey, the holy prophet Young could teach false doctrines (thereby leading the church astray) and still claim his eternal reward, but if England (a mere rank-and-file church member) believes or disseminates Young's false doctrine, he will be damned to hell.

And McDonkey is thought of as one of Mormonism's greatest thinkers and theologians.

Why do they even bother to teach theology? Every generation it zigs then zags, and what's worse, the church is good at covering its tracks. Google is fixing that.

I agree that the cult is implementing yet another con in their running of their $$$organization. This is what those in charge do, just like ole sleazy Joe himself. New spins, new twists and turns, new cover-ups, new "little" innocent white lies, etc. etc. etc. are the real articles of faith......

1. We believe in doing anything and everything that will keep all members in a tail-spin.

2. Conning is a real art and we have perfected it. In our organization know, with us leaders at the helm, all things are possible.

3. We, the cult, have the ability to come up with amazing con statements. To give just a few examples: Hinkley: We are not a weird people. I do not know that we teach that. A mistake here...a mistake there. Do not worry about those little flicks of history.

4 through l2. Yes, we the leaders of the cult are amazing in the art of a good con. If you doubt our ability, why just check our record. So doubt your doubts and keep following us, your amazing leaders who learned everything they need to know from the founder, the CON ARTIST EXTRODINAIRE, Joseph Smith, Jr. Now sit up, shut up, and put that whole damn body of yours to the wheel. There is much to be conned...I mean done.