No mistakes made in callings

[JAHS]

President Eyring made this rather bold statement in General Conference:

"For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls."

He goes on to explain a little what he meant"

"That may bring a smile or a shake of the head to some in this audience—both those who think their own call to serve might have been a mistake as well as those who picture some they know who seem poorly suited to their place in the Lord’s kingdom. My counsel to both groups is to delay such judgments until you can better see what the Lord sees. The judgment you need to make, instead, is that you have the capacity to receive revelation and to act on it fearlessly."  The Lord Leads His Church

I have known a couple Bishops and even a Stake president who it seems should never have been called to such a position, because of what sins they were hiding and things they did while they were serving as a Bishop or Stake President. There is one in the news right now as an example.  I know no one is perfect as President Eyring said, but how do you justify to someone who was hurt by such a person, that President Eyring is right when he says  mistakes are not made in who is called to a certain position of trust and leadership? 

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, JAHS said:

President Eyring made this rather bold statement in General Conference:

"For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls."

He goes on to explain a little what he meant"

"That may bring a smile or a shake of the head to some in this audience—both those who think their own call to serve might have been a mistake as well as those who picture some they know who seem poorly suited to their place in the Lord’s kingdom. My counsel to both groups is to delay such judgments until you can better see what the Lord sees. The judgment you need to make, instead, is that you have the capacity to receive revelation and to act on it fearlessly."  The Lord Leads His Church

I have known a couple Bishops and even a Stake president who it seems should never have been called to such a position, because of what sins they were hiding and things they did while they were serving as a Bishop or Stake President. There is one in the news right now as an example.  I know no one is perfect as President Eyring said, but how do you justify to someone who was hurt by such a person, that President Eyring is right when he says  mistakes are not made in who is called to a certain position of trust and leadership? 

The problem of evil throws a wrench in this kind of thinking for me.  This would make God culpable for all the evil acts performed by those people called into positions, because God would have foreknowledge of their tendencies and therefore God could have chosen to call someone else, yet still chose to call these people to a position knowing ahead of time exactly the evil acts they would perform.  This seems like Calvinism to me, and not Mormonism.  I don't believe in a God that has this kind of foreknowledge, it goes against the Mormon idea of agency as well.  

To me, Mormonism is a belief in a fallible God, and I know the scriptures that talk about God's omniscience, but you can't reconcile those with the idea that God is progressing and learning and growing.  Either one it true or the other is true, those two things are in conflict theologically speaking.  

I think President Eyring likes the idea that God knows us intimately because that gives him comfort that God is in control, however if you take that idea to its logical ends, it makes God responsible for the evils in this world, and that is not a comforting idea in my mind.  

[Duncan]

29 minutes ago, JAHS said:

President Eyring made this rather bold statement in General Conference:

"For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls."

He goes on to explain a little what he meant"

"That may bring a smile or a shake of the head to some in this audience—both those who think their own call to serve might have been a mistake as well as those who picture some they know who seem poorly suited to their place in the Lord’s kingdom. My counsel to both groups is to delay such judgments until you can better see what the Lord sees. The judgment you need to make, instead, is that you have the capacity to receive revelation and to act on it fearlessly."  The Lord Leads His Church

I have known a couple Bishops and even a Stake president who it seems should never have been called to such a position, because of what sins they were hiding and things they did while they were serving as a Bishop or Stake President. There is one in the news right now as an example.  I know no one is perfect as President Eyring said, but how do you justify to someone who was hurt by such a person, that President Eyring is right when he says  mistakes are not made in who is called to a certain position of trust and leadership? 

I question a few calls myself. I figure the bigger they are or think they are the harder they fall. I guess it depends on what was done but I think some things are easier to process if they are disciplined, at least the victim knows that someone else knows that what happened to them was not right and justice is taking it's course. There is a person in our stake, in a stake calling that someone killed themselves over what they did I and others are like, um, we remember that and I would like to know if there are safeguards in place to prevent that from happening again, because I can easily seeing that happening again. Not necessarily a suicide (hopefully) but events that precipitate that

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, JAHS said:

President Eyring made this rather bold statement in General Conference:

"For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls."

He goes on to explain a little what he meant"

"That may bring a smile or a shake of the head to some in this audience—both those who think their own call to serve might have been a mistake as well as those who picture some they know who seem poorly suited to their place in the Lord’s kingdom. My counsel to both groups is to delay such judgments until you can better see what the Lord sees. The judgment you need to make, instead, is that you have the capacity to receive revelation and to act on it fearlessly."  The Lord Leads His Church

I have known a couple Bishops and even a Stake president who it seems should never have been called to such a position, because of what sins they were hiding and things they did while they were serving as a Bishop or Stake President. There is one in the news right now as an example.  I know no one is perfect as President Eyring said, but how do you justify to someone who was hurt by such a person, that President Eyring is right when he says  mistakes are not made in who is called to a certain position of trust and leadership? 

So the assumption of the thread is that priesthood leaders are fallible and make mistakes, right?  Yet Elder Eyring claims infallibility.

But the assumption of the thread is that priesthood leaders are fallible, so the objection that Elder Eyring is wrong about being infallible is itself wrong and so there is not purpose for the thread.

So let's ignore the thread and go have lunch.

BUT

There is more to this.

On the other hand, I agree with Elder Eyring in that it is up to each of us seek a testimony of our calling, and sacrifice to make the best of it we can.  All of life is a test on how well we handle things when they do not go well AND assume that the calling came from the Lord

For all we know that "terrible calling" was given precisely to test us.  For all we know the sinful stake president may be encouraged by such a calling to change his ways.

The point is that we are to BELIEVE in the callings we are given and that assumption itself will bring us closer to Christ for obedience alone if nothing else.

So let's BELIEVE Elder Eyring and assume he is right and see what we have to learn by doing so instead of making the self-contradictory observation that though leaders make mistakes, Elder E is claiming infallibility.

In other words, this whole life is about learning from mistakes, those we make and those others make.

We call this "The Gospel of Jesus Christ" and the "Plan of Happiness".   Remember Adam and Eve and the fortunate fall?

So what's the big deal?

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

For all we know that "terrible calling" was given precisely to test us.  For all we know the sinful stake president may be encouraged by such a calling to change his ways.

He didn't change his ways and is excommunicated and now in prison. My wife and some fellow stake members were some of his victims. 

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem of evil throws a wrench in this kind of thinking for me.  This would make God culpable for all the evil acts performed by those people called into positions, because God would have foreknowledge of their tendencies and therefore God could have chosen to call someone else, yet still chose to call these people to a position knowing ahead of time exactly the evil acts they would perform.  This seems like Calvinism to me, and not Mormonism.  I don't believe in a God that has this kind of foreknowledge, it goes against the Mormon idea of agency as well.  

So God has enough foresight to inspire Nephi to create another set of plates to remedy a lost manuscript situation that will occur some 2,400 years in the future but the same God doesn't have the foreknowledge to see a bishop sexually assaulting a deacon in the next 4-5 years...

Do a search of lds.org, unqualified omniscience appears to be a Mormon teaching since JS. 

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, JAHS said:

He didn't change his ways and is excommunicated and now in prison. My wife and some fellow stake members were some of his victims. 

So sorry that happened to you.

Sometimes that is the way life is.  There are evil people in this world. It is our job to know that bad things sometimes happen to good people and try, hard as it may be, to learn something from it.

I hope you can work this all out in you mind at least with God's help.

Edited October 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So sorry that happened to you.

Sometimes that is the way life is.  There are evil people in this world. 

Yes I understand that. I just don't think it's right to assume all callings are inspired of God and are not mistakes. What if the imperfect people making the calling are not in a spiritual frame of mind to be able to receive inspiration at the time they make the calling and so the wrong person is called. Perhaps God was willing to inspire them but they could not receive it. 

[Bob Crockett]

Being sinless is not a prerequisite to being called as a bishop or stake president.  It is a fantasy to so think.  Being a prior good example and a man with a good reputation is not a prerequisite to being called as a bishop or stake president.   It is a fantasy to so think.   In reality,  a bishop or stake president is just one of us plucked from the congregation to do the Lord's work for a limited time.

Certainly, once they are called they may sin just like the rest of us.  

Otherwise, some of the great leaders in the Church would never have qualified -- Peter, for one.   Brigham Young certainly had lots of faults up to the day he died, but he single-handedly built the church into what it is today.   He called as one of his counselors a son who was not a believer, but was particularly proficient in business and railroads, and served the church well.

I realize that it may be difficult to adhere to this rule in Utah, but I don't do business with members except at the retail level (such as insurance agents, dentists, doctors, food supply sellers); I don't invest with members; I don't buy or sell real estate to members; I don't loan money to members.  I'm a lawyer and don't work for members in my stake or adjacent stake for a fee.  If you separate Mammon from the Spirit you won't be disappointed in a church member and start blaming the church for your errors of judgment.  It is absolute foolishness to go into business with or invest with your bishop or stake president or any other person whom you met through church.  Perhaps I am overstating things, but if your stake president asks if you want to get involved with him in Amway, run for the hills.  I always do and have never been burned. 

I recently had a successful church friend ask me to invest with him in a real estate development.  Since I have this personal rule, he fully understood that I don't ever do that kind of investment after I explained it.  Members often ask me to loan them money; I always say "no."   Just say no. When I was in priesthood leadership roles years ago, I saw several examples of people leaving the church because the church failed to discipline a prominent member of the church who defrauded the complainant in a business relation.  Just say no.  There may be some hard feelings but it will be minor to the hard feelings when your stake president fails to perform with your investment.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[rpn]

This is what I would say, "Heavenly Father runs the church and He doesn't let listening leaders mess it up."    I know this for certain, because of personal experiences.   But I also have had personal experiences where I intellectually made decisions and had to be pretty much hit over the head before learning how God wanted me to do it.   And I doubt I am that unique.  Even leaders who are called of God have to be able and willing to hear His direction.   We all know that means sometimes non-listening leaders do screw up.   (A trial for mortals, we may never know in this life or another which decisions such leaders made without God's approval (though it is likely the mortal will know, even if they are not humble enough to acknowledge it or recognize their own folly).

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

So God has enough foresight to inspire Nephi to create another set of plates to remedy a lost manuscript situation that will occur some 2,400 years in the future but the same God doesn't have the foreknowledge to see a bishop sexually assaulting a deacon in the next 4-5 years...

Do a search of lds.org, unqualified omniscience appears to be a Mormon teaching since JS. 

So you're saying that Mormonism teaches that God is culpable for sexual abuse?  

[JAHS]

53 minutes ago, rpn said:

This is what I would say, "Heavenly Father runs the church and He doesn't let listening leaders mess it up."    I know this for certain, because of personal experiences.   But I also have had personal experiences where I intellectually made decisions and had to be pretty much hit over the head before learning how God wanted me to do it.   And I doubt I am that unique.  Even leaders who are called of God have to be able and willing to hear His direction.   We all know that means sometimes non-listening leaders do screw up.   (A trial for mortals, we may never know in this life or another which decisions such leaders made without God's approval (though it is likely the mortal will know, even if they are not humble enough to acknowledge it or recognize their own folly).

 I would agree with this, but It seems then that President Eyring should have said "and so makes no mistakes in His calls when leaders are listening"

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

President Eyring ........................................  The Lord Leads His Church

I have known a couple Bishops and even a Stake president who it seems should never have been called to such a position, because of what sins they were hiding and things they did while they were serving as a Bishop or Stake President. There is one in the news right now as an example.  I know no one is perfect as President Eyring said, but how do you justify to someone who was hurt by such a person, that President Eyring is right when he says  mistakes are not made in who is called to a certain position of trust and leadership? 

Good points, but they overlook the harsh reality that even the Lord Jesus Christ chose Judas as one of his Twelve.  And even in the case of Peter, his top apostle, we find him denying Christ three times.  What's that all about?  Surely he could have made better selections.  Or is there something else going on?  Is there a lesson for us in the selection of key people in the OT who did not deliver perfectly?  Who fell short in a major way?  Take King David, for example, who was so dear to God's own heart, and yet who committed adultery and murder.  Then there was the prophet Jona, who was not only disobedient, but petulant to boot.  Could free agency have something to do with this problem?  Especially given the anti-Calvinist view of free will which LDS theology emphasizes.

Is disobedience and human frailty just part of the price of doing business with humans?

[Duncan]

it's been awhile but didn't Terryl Givens argue something like this as well?

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

I know no one is perfect as President Eyring said, but how do you justify to someone who was hurt by such a person, that President Eyring is right when he says  mistakes are not made in who is called to a certain position of trust and leadership?

I would say that President Eyring is teaching a general principal. I remember reading a talk by Elder Oaks one time where he was addressing a group of single adults. He said that he didn't want to receive any letters explaining to him how some part of what he was speaking about didn't apply to them because of some unique situation in their life. It wasn't that he wasn't sympathetic; it was just that he simply didn't have time to talk about every possible situation that may come up in life, so he teaches general principals and it is up to you and the Lord to figure out when the circumstances of your life fall outside those general principals (and what to do when that happens). 

I think President Eyring is doing the same thing here. He is teaching a general rule, to a worldwide audience, and the purpose of his talk is to encourage people to know that God provides direction for them in their lives and that he provides direction to other imperfect people who he has called to serve in the church as well. I wouldn't get too hung up on the fact that he was teaching a general rule without discussing any / every possible exception. 

[SmileyMcGee]

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So you're saying that Mormonism teaches that God is culpable for sexual abuse?  

The church's foundational book of scripture illustrates many times that the God in the BoM has more foresight than you claimed the religion teaches in your previous post. For crying out loud, in the first book of Nephi God shows Nephi a vision of the end of the world...how could God do that without better foresight than what you claim? 

Draw whatever conclusions you want about the culpability of God and the problem of evil, I just think your limited-foresight idea of God is demonstrably not Mormon.

[JAHS]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Good points, but they overlook the harsh reality that even the Lord Jesus Christ chose Judas as one of his Twelve.  And even in the case of Peter, his top apostle, we find him denying Christ three times.  What's that all about?  Surely he could have made better selections.  Or is there something else going on?  Is there a lesson for us in the selection of key people in the OT who did not deliver perfectly?  Who fell short in a major way?  Take King David, for example, who was so dear to God's own heart, and yet who committed adultery and murder.  Then there was the prophet Jona, who was not only disobedient, but petulant to boot.  Could free agency have something to do with this problem?  Especially given the anti-Calvinist view of free will which LDS theology emphasizes.

Is disobedience and human frailty just part of the price of doing business with humans?

So why do we even have to worry whether or not callings are inspired by God if any sinful man will do? Why do we encourage members to be worthy to fill callings or be worthy and inspired to make decisions on who should be in a calling?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So why do we even have to worry whether or not callings are inspired by God if any sinful man will do? Why do we encourage members to be worthy to fill callings or be worthy and inspired to make decisions on who should be in a calling?

As far I know, the LDS selection process has been remarkably successful over the years, the exceptions basically proving the rule.  The risks are real, but the payoff is high and certainly one of the prime reasons for the success of the LDS Church.  Frail humans are challenged, and learn from the experience.  Some fall by the wayside.  "We are sowing, daily sowing, seeds of good and ill . . ."

And you obtain from that process the lesson that "any sinful man will do"?  A religion is a path, not a home.  You need calculus and quantum mechanics to describe what goes on in real life.  Free will brings real choices, and one may not rest on yesterday's laurels.  Judas and King David went bad.  They didn't have to.  They had high potential.  Each had choices.  Real choices.  Never forget that.

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

The church's foundational book of scripture illustrates many times that the God in the BoM has more foresight than you claimed the religion teaches in your previous post. For crying out loud, in the first book of Nephi God shows Nephi a vision of the end of the world...how could God do that without better foresight than what you claim? 

Draw whatever conclusions you want about the culpability of God and the problem of evil, I just think your limited-foresight idea of God is demonstrably not Mormon.

I don't deny that there are scriptures that one could interpret the way you are explaining, but how do you square that with a God who weeps, a God who values agency and a God who progresses?  

These concepts are in tension with each other.  I personally don't think there is any need to reconcile them, I just gravitate to the concept of God that resonates best with my conscience.  

[The Nehor]

I agree with President Eyring.

[JAHS]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As far I know, the LDS selection process has been remarkably successful over the years, the exceptions basically proving the rule.  The risks are real, but the payoff is high and certainly one of the prime reasons for the success of the LDS Church.  Frail humans are challenged, and learn from the experience.  Some fall by the wayside.  "We are sowing, daily sowing, seeds of good and ill . . ."

And you obtain from that process the lesson that "any sinful man will do"?  A religion is a path, not a home.  You need calculus and quantum mechanics to describe what goes on in real life.  Free will brings real choices, and one may not rest on yesterday's laurels.  Judas and King David went bad.  They didn't have to.  They had high potential.  Each had choices.  Real choices.  Never forget that.

For the most part I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately I have seen some severe exceptions that have badly hurt some people who thought they could trust a church leader because they were supposedly called of God to serve in a position that gave them access to vulnerable members. But I agree that for the most part the system has worked well.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't deny that there are scriptures that one could interpret the way you are explaining, but how do you square that with a God who weeps, a God who values agency and a God who progresses?  

These concepts are in tension with each other.  I personally don't think there is any need to reconcile them, I just gravitate to the concept of God that resonates best with my conscience.  

SmileyMcGee is wrong, and you are on the right track here, hope.  Not that his view is not held by a lot of people who fail to think the problem through systematically.  They think that foresight effectively gives God Calvinistic sovereignty, forgetting about the undistributed middle term in their unstated syllogism.  For, as Rabbi Akiba states in Tractate Abot 3:15 in the Talmud, "All is foreseen, and free will is given."

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

For the most part I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately I have seen some severe exceptions that have badly hurt some people who thought they could trust a church leader because they were supposedly called of God to serve in a position that gave them access to vulnerable members. But I agree that for the most part the system has worked well.

And so, what do you say of Judas the traitor, or King David the murdering adulterer?  You are aware that each was chosen by God?  Are they severe enough for you?

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And so, what do you say of Judas the traitor, or King David the murdering adulterer?  You are aware that each was chosen by God?  Are they severe enough for you?

Sure they are and I am still wondering why God chose them.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

President Eyring made this rather bold statement in General Conference:

"For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls."

He goes on to explain a little what he meant"

"That may bring a smile or a shake of the head to some in this audience—both those who think their own call to serve might have been a mistake as well as those who picture some they know who seem poorly suited to their place in the Lord’s kingdom. My counsel to both groups is to delay such judgments until you can better see what the Lord sees. The judgment you need to make, instead, is that you have the capacity to receive revelation and to act on it fearlessly."  The Lord Leads His Church

I have known a couple Bishops and even a Stake president who it seems should never have been called to such a position, because of what sins they were hiding and things they did while they were serving as a Bishop or Stake President. There is one in the news right now as an example.  I know no one is perfect as President Eyring said, but how do you justify to someone who was hurt by such a person, that President Eyring is right when he says  mistakes are not made in who is called to a certain position of trust and leadership? 

The Lord may have in mind someone for a calling; less sure that person is always called though.  My guess is sometimes it is the bishop, SP, or other leader doing the calling, not the Lord.  And they make mistakes.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Calm