Jump to content

CV75

Contributor
  • Content Count

    13,441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,323 Excellent

2 Followers

About CV75

  • Rank
    Creates Man & Woman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,961 profile views
  1. OK then, back to the OP: [So-and-so sex abusers, --let's assume they were named in the other thread -- are] imperfect. Did the [bishop] know [they] would be [subsequently perpetrating sexual abuse] when he called [them]? Maybe yes, maybe no. Are [sex abusers that hold callings] proof that callings are not made through revelation? No. The follow up post by the OP is the opinion that, sometimes calling sex abusers ("human imperfections" seems to be overly euphemistic here but I'll go with it) is inspired and sometimes it is not. The false implications seem to be a) that inspiration renders infallibility in the call, b) a lack of inspiration is due to the bishop's fallibility, and c) "b" depends on whether the sex abuser abuses someone in his calling.
  2. These beliefs have nothing to do with correctly determining whether the bishop made a mistake or an inerrancy in issuing a calling to a known sex abuser.
  3. Thank you! I did see your post but did not engage because I thought it was not about the OP. I engaged with AL because he addressed me on the topic directly. What you’re saying allows that it is not a mistake to call a sex abuser as long as doesn’t abuse. I think that would sell better, just give me a cut of your profits. I don’t think you believe that. I think all callings are intentional and not mistakes, so it is no mistake to call a sex abuser whether he abuses in his calling or not. It is more germane to discuss the intent of bishops who call sex abusers, knowingly or not. Even if a bishop calls someone he doesn’t know is a sex abuser, or calls someone who begins abusing in his calling, his not predicting the future is not a mistake. To not have revelation about the hidden present or the future is not a mistake, because the Lord often has leaders do as “seemeth” them good. I would say a lack of revelation, a lack of information and even a lack of common sense/discernment/wisdom etc. are not errors in judgement but factors in rendering judgement. perhaps a fine point, but it seems that a mistake is being identified only when something bad happens, and mistakes often end up with good things happening. A bishop who knowingly calls a sex abuser is not making a mistake. We can judge him to be evil, stupid, fallible, etc. But we do not know him as the Lord does, and the Lord gave him that latitude to do as seemeth him good. The bishop will have to answer to the stake president and above, which would require his divulging (or admitting in the case of the Lord) his prior knowledge of that person's sex abuse offenses, and they can take it from there.
  4. You needn't have introduced it to have brought it into the thread. I am right again! Is this what you are really interested in, and not addressing my salient points? If so, guess what my next post will be LOL
  5. No, I wasn't involved in the other thread. I think the most common issue is a misunderstanding of how mistakes, delegation and revelation intersect, but it goes unrecognized due convenience and bias, which is the real mistake in my opinion
  6. Sometimes callings are issued under God's delegation and direction according to that which "seemeth him/you good" (see various references in D&C and Book of Mormon), and not direct revelation and command. I don't see how calling sex abusers, which can be unfortunate when they don't repent, can be deemed a mistake. Otherwise, a lack of revelation is not a mistake, especially when the Lord has set it up for the bishop to do as "seemeth him good."
  7. Yes, and some think God needs to yet figure that into the equation!
  8. It doesn't matter that you didn't start the thread. You fostered the emphasis on sex abuse into a topic about Judas.
  9. I see what you did there! So as to not derail another thread's topic, you bring that topic into the very topic that was derailing that one...
  10. So now it's about sex abuse. OK. Didn't see that in the OP... But I hereby want everyone to know that I think it is wrong, I would not call someone I knew was a sex abuser, I would reject any revelation to do so, and would tell my stake president if I ever got such a revelation. I wonder if you would. Got any other scenarios? That said, I don't know the minds and hearts of individual bishops, so as far as I'm concerned the Lord considers acting one man's motive and intent leads to rebellion and another man's leads to mistakes.
  11. I think the Savior called Judas according to the Father's will, which Jesus infallibly followed. We don't have the back-story on the Father's will on that point. It could also well be that any or more than one of the twelve had the potential to betray Him, just as we all do. I think the bottom line is that Jesus perceived that He would be betrayed for money in connection with the other prophecies about Him and how he would give His life. I think the D&C's references to "seemeth you/him" good allows that revelation and delegation are both used in issuing callings. Any calling is an opportunity for agency, repentance and grace, and in these God makes no mistakes. I think human imperfections are only proof that callings are given to imperfect people, not whether the callng is inspired or not.
  12. My answer is a bit simpler: A functional view is that they make mistakes. Applying this to your focal points, an absence of revelation is not a mistake. The lack of a specific revelation from general Church leaders may provoke in someone a sense of disagreement or importunity, depending on his expectations and judgement, which is what the OP is covering. Personal revelation is typically accompanied with the inspiration to share, or not to share as with the brother of Jared. Now un-Christlike behavior in withholding recommends and callings and ostracizing and marginalizing members of the flock are exceptions for our cultural mores, and there are plenty of means for the offended to obtain redress through the system. In my mind these go beyond and are worse than mistakes in teachings, doctrine and policy.
  13. I think the experience of the brother of Jared applies to this one too. Are the other prophets condemned because they did not see what he did, and did not teach what he did? Was he amiss by doing something the omniscient Lord did not expect? Is the Lord contradicting Himself by not allowing the brother of Jared to teach the truth and instead seal it up for a future dispensation? Yes, one can say the Lord was just playing along with His questions, wanted the brother of Jared to see what he saw all along, and set things up to lead to that exchange, but then are the other prophets condemned because they weren't chosen for the same game? Of course we don't know anything for sure, but perhaps the lifting of the ban was the same dynamic as seeing the Lord's finger. Which earlier prophets were wrong, or need to be chastised and forgiven, for not seeing it?
  14. You may reply to my posts with platitudes about the freedom to think, pray, and disagree when my comments have gone past that, but I’d like to see you stay on topic and comment on the relationship between personal belief system collapse and the freedom to believe, pray and disagree in dysfunctional ways. Or specific to the OP, what constitutes a functional view of Church leaders’ tendency to make mistakes and errors. Avoiding the topic may or may not be a symptom but is certainly not a comment.
×
×
  • Create New...