Problems with the infallibility of the UHJ

• In the current age of "fallibilism," any claim to infallibility is obsolete and untenable. Critics, including some Christian theologians like Hans Küng, argue that "No one is infallible save God" and point to historically erroneous decisions in other faiths (like the Catholic Church) as evidence against the concept.
• Because the Universal House of Justice relies on potentially fragmentary or misreported information from fallible subordinates, its decisions cannot claim absolute correctness. 'Conditional infallibility' is a contradiction in terms: a judgment built on faulty facts is simply an error, and the very need for later correction concedes that it was never infallible to begin with.
• An extensive interpretation that claims everything the House decides is infallible is extremely risky. Critics and zealous observers need only find a single evident error to falsify and empirically disprove the entire claim to divine guidance.
• Applying the "august concept of infallibility" to trivial matters - administrative appointments or building décor - reduces it to absurdity and trivializes the will of God. Worse, an uncritical, quasi-magical view of guidance recasts the institution as a Delphic Oracle, encouraging believers to evade personal responsibility and surrender their own reason.