“Fallible Sharpshooter”

[Dr Moore]

It is fascinating to see how church culture is evolving to embrace the new apologetic that a prophet, seer and revelator is at once a mouthpiece for the supreme being of the universe and a fallible human who may speak untruth while in an official capacity.

The outcome, it seems, is an increasingly comedic tension as members disabuse themselves of long held expectations that the prophets and apostles speak for God, while the sitting prophets and apostles give speech after speech witnessing that the current leaders actually do speak for God. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

It occurs to me that this is what we might call a “fallible sharpshooter” model of illogic. While there are plenty of sharpshooter fallacy cases in Mopologetic studies and historical truth defenses, I think the more insidious apologetic is happening in real time as we see once-claimed targets being removed, and members actually blamed for believing those targets existed and were “bullseyed” in the first place. Whether it be Book of Abraham historicity, race and priesthood, historical flood or tower of Babel, or for that matter efficacy of Priesthood blessings, taking once firm bullseye stories and removing both the target and the intent to hit that target. Heck, if you go back to the 1980s, Kinderhook fits the model.

All of this just feels like a thin skinned leadership doing whatever it takes to never be held accountable for anything. (Is it any wonder Mopologists throw adult tantrums and refuse to be held accountable for anything?) Is there any specific outcome which members can demand from church leaders today? I would argue, there is actually no expectation of fidelity to their own words or actions in the Mormon leadership model. Leaders can practically say anything and not be held accountable for error or harm caused.

That is to say, not held accountable within their own system. Obviously the one, and only, accountability enforcement is when members leave or disengage. That is clearly happening at a far more rapid pace than the resignation data would indicate.

[drumdude]

I've noticed Mormons have a cute saying in rebuttal.

"Catholics teach their leader is infallible but don't believe it, Mormons teach their leaders are fallible but don't believe it."

The problem of course is that Mormons teach that following the prophet is infallible. Regardless of if the prophet is being racist, homophobic, or teaching false doctrine.

[Fence Sitter]

Believers will tell you the prophet is fallible but will not point out anything that he has said that is in error. Dead prophets can be wrong but only when contradicted by a living one.

[IHAQ]

Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God’s will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.

We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

“We can always trust the living prophets” is a claim of infallibility.

What I find interesting is the dissonance inherent within it, which is that dead prophets were fallible. The Living Prophet is infallible until he’s dead...hmmm…

[malkie]

Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God’s will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.

We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

“We can always trust the living prophets” is a claim of infallibility.

What I find interesting is the dissonance inherent within it, which is that dead prophets were fallible. The Living Prophet is infallible until he’s dead...hmmm…

The old ones had passed their "best by" dates?

[PseudoPaul]

It is fascinating to see how church culture is evolving to embrace the new apologetic that a prophet, seer and revelator is at once a mouthpiece for the supreme being of the universe and a fallible human who may speak untruth while in an official capacity.

This is a necessary apologetic for them to make - however everything I've heard from the current prophet and his supporters in the highest levels of leadership tells me that they don't believe that prophets can speak untruth in an official capacity - or at least not President Nelson in particular.

[Dr Moore]

It is fascinating to see how church culture is evolving to embrace the new apologetic that a prophet, seer and revelator is at once a mouthpiece for the supreme being of the universe and a fallible human who may speak untruth while in an official capacity.

This is a necessary apologetic for them to make - however everything I've heard from the current prophet and his supporters in the highest levels of leadership tells me that they don't believe that prophets can speak untruth in an official capacity - or at least not President Nelson in particular.

...not until he's dead. Then it's time to start erasing targets and blaming members for believing Nelson hit any number of intended targets because of course, he was just expressing his well considered opinions.

[consiglieri]

Great 0P! I think this really gets behind what the church is doing with their recent innovation of the “ongoing restoration!”

It is a nice catchphrase to encapsulate the idea that we are the only ones who teach you the truth and you can disregard anything that anybody has said before us regardless of their position in the church.

[Dr Moore]

I think this really gets behind what the church is doing with their recent innovation of the “ongoing restoration!”

Right! The leadership has pressed this "ongoing restoration" narrative down through the ranks so as to completely redefine "doctrine" and "doctrinal inerrancy" (your phrase) into some ham fisted celebration of trading past beliefs for new ones, but instead of calling it "science" or "social progress" you should still call it "prophetic revelation."