Enough of the Infalliblity Nonsense

[pelagius]

Most of the stuff attacking the more conservative or orthodox posters in my view is a bit unfair. Sure, you can find Mormons who believe in something close to infallibility but it is strikes me as a complete straw man of most of the conservative posters positions on the board.

It is very easy to construct a rationale for why someone should act as if the prophet is infallible even if in reality you know he is far from it. Suppose you believe the prophet is fallible and makes mistakes. Suppose on average you think he is right 60% of the time and you believe that you are right only 50% (this example comes from another fellow economist). Then it is perfectly rational to behave as if the prophet is infallible even if you believe like in this example that he is far from it. I suspect in reality this is much closer to the reasoning of many orthodox members. They don't really believe that the prophet is infallible they just think that on average deferring to the prophets advice given some previous signal about the prophets spiritual judgment will give them better results on average (but far from perfect results).

Note also that one can have serious doubts and it still make sense to employ this decision rule. Suppose you believe there is 51% chance that the President of the Church is a prophet. Also, suppose that if he is a prophet then there is a 70% chance he is correct, but if he is not there is only a 40% probability he is correct. If this is the case, then your subjective probability that the prophet is correct is 0.51*0.7 + 0.49*0.4 = 55.3%. In this example you have serious doubts but it still may be optimal to follow the decision rule to behave as if the prophet was infallible.

Now one can argue that in certain situations based on a set of covariates the probabilities change. I'm fine with that. I think one might be able to make a reasonable argument in that regard. But please be fair to more conservative posters, their willingness to follow the prophet fairly unconditionally may be very far removed from some notion of infallibility and may in a very thoughtful way allow for serious doubts.

[MikeWaters]

For the conservative posters, the prophet is right 99% of the time, and they themselves are right 98% of the time.

It still makes sense for them to follow the prophet.

[MikeWaters]

Also your model ought to include certainy based on the subject. When it comes to theology, you might assign them a much higher %. But when it comes to sociology, history, and politics you might assign them a startlingly lower %.

Not all decisions/pronouncements are equal.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Also your model ought to include certainy based on the subject. When it comes to theology, you might assign them a much higher %. But when it comes to sociology, history, and politics you might assign them a startlingly lower %.

Not all decisions/pronouncements are equal.

I clearly mentioned that:

Now one can argue that in certain situations based on a set of covariates the probabilities change. I'm fine with that. I think one might be able to make a reasonable argument in that regard.

[MikeWaters]

For example, if the prophet weighed in on financial aspects of free-markets, you might assign yourself 65%, but based on what the prophet said, assign him only 10%.

Remember ETB said that prophets are right, and can weigh in on all matters, including civic.

ETB would assign the prophet 100% on all topics. I guess ETB is so extreme that would would't acknowledge such people in your model.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Most of the stuff attacking the more conservative or orthodox posters in my view is a bit unfair. Sure, you can find Mormons who believe in something close to infallibility but it is strikes me as a complete straw man of most of the conservative posters positions on the board.

It is very easy to construct a rationale for why someone should act as if the prophet is infallible even if in reality you know he is far from it. Suppose you believe the prophet is fallible and makes mistakes. Suppose on average you think he is right 60% of the time and you believe that you are right only 50% (this example comes from another fellow economist). Then it is perfectly rational to behave as if the prophet is infallible even if you believe like in this example that he is far from it. I suspect in reality this is much closer to the reasoning of many orthodox members. They don't really believe that the prophet is infallible they just think that on average deferring to the prophets advice given some previous signal about the prophets spiritual judgment will give them better results on average (but far from perfect results).

Note also that one can have serious doubts and it still make sense to employ this decision rule. Suppose you believe there is 51% chance that the President of the Church is a prophet. Also, suppose that if he is a prophet then there is a 70% chance he is correct, but if he is not there is only a 40% he is correct. If this is the case, then your subjective probability that the prophet is correct is 0.51*0.7 + 0.49*0.4 = 55.3%. In this example you have serious doubts but it still may be optimal to follow the decision rule to behave as if the prophet was infallible.

Now one can argue that in certain situations based on a set of covariates the probabilities change. I'm fine with that. I think one might be able to make a reasonable argument in that regard. But please be fair to more conservative posters, their willingness to follow the prophet fairly unconditionally may be very far removed from some notion of infallibility and may in a very thoughtful was allow for serious doubts.

I wish everyone talked like this. Most people look at me like I'm an alien if I try to talk like this.

Other variables would be "how important is this topic" or how passionate am i about the topic vs the prophet". I think I might be against the church on gay marriage, but the church seems to be so much more passionate than I am about it, that I will discount my view on the subject even more.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Most of the stuff attacking the more conservative or orthodox posters in my view is a bit unfair. Sure, you can find Mormons who believe in something close to infallibility but it is strikes me as a complete straw man of most of the conservative posters positions on the board.

It is very easy to construct a rationale for why someone should act as if the prophet is infallible even if in reality you know he is far from it. Suppose you believe the prophet is fallible and makes mistakes. Suppose on average you think he is right 60% of the time and you believe that you are right only 50% (this example comes from another fellow economist). Then it is perfectly rational to behave as if the prophet is infallible even if you believe like in this example that he is far from it. I suspect in reality this is much closer to the reasoning of many orthodox members. They don't really believe that the prophet is infallible they just think that on average deferring to the prophets advice given some previous signal about the prophets spiritual judgment will give them better results on average (but far from perfect results).

Note also that one can have serious doubts and it still make sense to employ this decision rule. Suppose you believe there is 51% chance that the President of the Church is a prophet. Also, suppose that if he is a prophet then there is a 70% chance he is correct, but if he is not there is only a 40% probability he is correct. If this is the case, then your subjective probability that the prophet is correct is 0.51*0.7 + 0.49*0.4 = 55.3%. In this example you have serious doubts but it still may be optimal to follow the decision rule to behave as if the prophet was infallible.

Now one can argue that in certain situations based on a set of covariates the probabilities change. I'm fine with that. I think one might be able to make a reasonable argument in that regard. But please be fair to more conservative posters, their willingness to follow the prophet fairly unconditionally may be very far removed from some notion of infallibility and may in a very thoughtful was allow for serious doubts.

That was a beautiful post. Let's boil the overstated "infallibility" down to two key points:

1. The prophet is going to be right more often than I am. In fact, past history has borne out that a reasonable default position to take is that the prophet is right.

2. If I'm not entirely sure the prophet is right, I am perfectly able (at least according to multiple prophets) to appeal to personal revelation for additional guidance. It is a very rare occurrence that there is insufficient time to read, ponder and pray before actually having to follow the prophet.

[pelagius]

The model is clearly a simplified abstraction. However, even in its simplify form that conservative members behaving as if the prophet is infallible can clearly be optimal and you don't have to think that the prophets spiritual judgment is near infallibility levels to follow a such a decision rule. A rule to behave as if someone is if the prophet is infallible is perfectly consistent with a thoughtful faith.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

The model is clearly a simplified abstraction. However, even in its simplify form that conservative members behaving as if the prophet is infallible can clearly be optimal and you don't have to think that the prophets spiritual judgment is near infallibility levels to follow a such a decision rule. A rule to behave as if someone is if the prophet is infallible is perfectly consistent with a thoughtful

An interesting aspect of your model is that the more intelligent, knowledgeable, spiritual you are, the less sense it makes to always follow the prophet, or put another way, your gains are less.

Let's take the example of Lingo...

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

For example, if the prophet weighed in on financial aspects of free-markets, you might assign yourself 65%, but based on what the prophet said, assign him only 10%.

Remember ETB said that prophets are right, and can weigh in on all matters, including civic.

ETB would assign the prophet 100% on all topics. I guess ETB is so extreme that would would't acknowledge such people in your model.

Waters you could easily convince me that the model really most applies to situations where the first presidency and the twelve speak out on an issue together with at least public agreement. My guess is the most conservative members would not have a problem with idea ...