Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boanerges

Qualification for bishop

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But I love this video.  This was MY life at the time.

Crivens, how I don't miss those times.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Your brother - That’s... so sad.  To feel less than because of the choices of another.  To believe one must be perfect to serve.   Where would he qualify to hold a calling....if all callings are indeed of equal importance, as we are taught? I hope your brother finds peace in his life.  Our SP has inactive children and he is a fabulous leader.  God didn’t step down when satan waged war. 

 

We would have to ask what "equal importance" means. I noticed that this was the individual's choice, not one imposed on him by the Church. He is entitled to act on his own feelings and deserves to be respected for doing so.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What about discipline that was in the past and is not ongoing?

That what I am unsure about but my guess is no access. The one exception would be a annotation which is usually permanent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A man who desires the office of a bishop needs to do some serious introspection.....and possibly a psychiatric exam. There's a reason being asked to serve is called a "calling."

I would agree but I would also disagree.

i don’t want a bishop who does not want to do the job because then you get a lazy bishop.

 

but also this scripture does not just mean bishop, it means elder as well even deacon which means you don’t want lazy priesthood holders.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

I would agree but I would also disagree.

i don’t want a bishop who does not want to do the job because then you get a lazy bishop.

 

but also this scripture does not just mean bishop, it means elder as well even deacon which means you don’t want lazy priesthood holders.

 

It’s an interesting dichotomy. Is it a sin to desire priesthood? Well no because Abraham desired this power and blessing and received it.  However is it wrong to desire an office in the church? I think that depends on why you might desire it. Is it to rule people? Then absolutely not because you’ll damn yourself. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's your path, get out of foundationalism, create a path and commit to it til it no longer works for you, then pick another. Truth is what you create, not discover.  This is a business of creating worlds

Ok, but that brings us back to my questions about how can we effectively judge what works and what is detrimental?  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doctrine 612 said:

I would agree but I would also disagree.

i don’t want a bishop who does not want to do the job because then you get a lazy bishop.

 

but also this scripture does not just mean bishop, it means elder as well even deacon which means you don’t want lazy priesthood holders.

 

I know many men (my dh is one) who absolutely do not want to ever be a bishop, but will put their whole heart and soul into the calling should they receive it.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, but that brings us back to my questions about how can we effectively judge what works and what is detrimental?  

Ask your gut.

I thought that was clear.  The other part is forget about foundationalism.  Fergitaboutit.  ;)

Nothing about ethics or religion is  objective.  I think I have mentioned that once before.  ;)  How can you effectively judge what marriage you are about to undertake will work?  You look the problem over and make a decision, it either works or it doesn't.  Then you get on with life and try something else.

If you don't know what works you are in bigger trouble than I can help with.  ;) 🤩

Quote

 

But at the same time, I'm ok if all of those propositions are just randomness, and that the only meaning in all of this is just the meaning that we humans create.  And that is good enough to motivate me as well.  That is why I consider myself partially influenced and inspired by humanism.  It still motivates me to be a better person even if there is no divine plan or meaning to life.  We create our own stories and we live them.  I see the human experience similar to a beautiful piece of art.  

 

 

 

There you go- that's your  answer.   That doesn't mean there IS no plan, but we accept it on faith!

If got it wrong, then you have lived a good life anyway, it's win-win.

The problem wth Pascal's wager was that it was disingenuous to make the wage while a non- believer.  

But if you live a good LDS life, IF  you are drawn to it, you are  doingit because it is the right way to live- according to your inner compass anyway, so there is no way to lose.

Worst  case you don't wake up after  death, and you  still havehad a good life

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Spoken like someone who has never thought about the impact it might have on an abuse victim to walk into a church three decades later and see their abuser presiding in sacrament meeting.

@Anijen, I believe this might be a good time for you to do a little reflecting about how calls to serve might actually involve someone besides the person called to serve.

It is almost impossible to get the tone of sarcasm in words. Evidently my attempt was very poorly worded. Truth being, I never want to be a Bishop, but have been honored to have been considered to be one by my Stake President (I was not eliminated because of a past sin or disciplinary action). The extra conditions to me just seemed a bit, very little bit, of a dbl standard compared to our perfect Saviors ability to remember them no more. I also understand the need for the Church to use caution and the perspective of past victims. 

I have never been one to really get the hang of the humor thing (especially sarcasm), my apologies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

I would agree but I would also disagree.

i don’t want a bishop who does not want to do the job because then you get a lazy bishop but also this scripture does not just mean bishop, it means elder as well even deacon which means you don’t want lazy priesthood holders.

 

I once coveted a calling. When I got it, I was taught a good lesson on why we are commanded not to covet nor to puff ourselves up.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I once coveted a calling. When I got it, I was taught a good lesson on why we are commanded not to covet or to puff ourselves up.

Of all the callings I have done.

two are my favorite.

Gospel Doctrine teacher.

Ward missionary.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ask your gut.

I thought that was clear.  The other part is forget about foundationalism.  Fergitaboutit.  ;)

Nothing about ethics or religion is  objective.  I think I have mentioned that once before.  ;)  How can you effectively judge what marriage you are about to undertake will work?  You look the problem over and make a decision, it either works or it doesn't.  Then you get on with life and try something else.

If you don't know what works you are in bigger trouble than I can help with.  ;) 🤩

There you go- that's your  answer.   That doesn't mean there IS no plan, but we accept it on faith!

If got it wrong, then you have lived a good life anyway, it's win-win.

The problem wth Pascal's wager was that it was disingenuous to make the wage while a non- believer.  

But if you live a good LDS life, IF  you are drawn to it, you are  doingit because it is the right way to live- according to your inner compass anyway, so there is no way to lose.

Worst  case you don't wake up after  death, and you  still havehad a good life

I agree with much of this, but you haven’t explained how you reconcile the tension of all those people who followed their gut and did horrific things that when judged by society were clearly detrimental and considered evil.  A personal feeling that I’m doing something correct clearly isn’t all there is to it.  How do you reconcile all the evil perpetuated by those who personally felt they were doing something right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How do you reconcile all the evil perpetuated by those who personally felt they were doing something right.  

Mistakes

You can't avoid them. Period

The alternative is paralysis by indecision. I see a lot of that around here. This is life. You try something it doesn't work you do something else. This is not a complex thing or some great metaphysical mystery. One could waste one's life contemplating their navel.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Mistakes

You can't avoid them. Period

The alternative is paralysis by indecision. I see a lot of that around here. This is life. You try something it doesn't work you do something else. This is not a complex thing or some great metaphysical mystery. One could waste one's life contemplating their navel.

I think calling these things mistakes is grossly understating the problem.  It’s not just individuals doing something morally problematic that might effect a small number of people like the Lafferty brothers for example.  This problem also can include large groups of people perpetuating genocidal levels of evil on millions.  

It seems to me that while the, follow your gut approach, has some merits it also has fundamental flaws that I’m not able to comfortably reconcile.  I’d really like to understand how you look at this dilemma.  It is the elephant in the room.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Of all the callings I have done.

two are my favorite.

Gospel Doctrine teacher.

Ward missionary.

Oh yeah! I really enjoyed serving as ward clerk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think calling these things mistakes is grossly understating the problem.  It’s not just individuals doing something morally problematic that might effect a small number of people like the Lafferty brothers for example.  This problem also can include large groups of people perpetuating genocidal levels of evil on millions.  

It seems to me that while the, follow your gut approach, has some merits it also has fundamental flaws that I’m not able to comfortably reconcile.  I’d really like to understand how you look at this dilemma.  It is the elephant in the room.  

Kant.

The golden rule. Can't have civilization without it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Kant.

The golden rule. Can't have civilization without it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

I’m quite uneducated on Kant, and I have a question about his moral universalism as defined in this quote from the wiki link.  

Reason, separate from all empirical experience, can determine the principle according to which all ends can be determined as moral. It is this fundamental principle of moral reason that is known as the categorical imperative. Pure practical reason is the process of determining what ought to be done without reference to empirical contingent factors. Moral questions are determined independent of reference to the particular subject posing them. It is because morality is determined by pure practical reason, rather than particular empirical or sensuous factors, that morality is universally valid. This moral universalism has come to be seen as the distinctive aspect of Kant's moral philosophy and has had wide social impact in the legal and political concepts of human rights and equality.

What does it mean then when it says that moral questions are determined independent of the subject posting them?  So it sounds like he’s advocating for a universal morality and that reason can somehow get us all there.  I don’t know that I’m in agreement with that strong of a claim as clearly environmental factors play a strong role. 

However, I’m also not understanding how his categorical imperative and the Golden Rule help to reconcile my concerns about the evil perpetuated by those who have good intentions and ends justifying the means type arguments.  

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Anijen said:

I have never been one to really get the hang of the humor thing (especially sarcasm), my apologies.

Ah!  We are both the latest in a series of victims of Poe's law. No harm, no foul.  (Other than I was delivering some top-notch righteous smackdown, apparently in an invalid direction.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oh yeah! I really enjoyed serving as ward clerk. 

In a way, my favorite calling has been Assistant Ward Clerk for Membership.  Ward members never knew it, of course, but, from a certain perspective, I got to be a part of many of the special events in their lives: births and baby blessings, baptisms and confirmations, endowments, sealings, et cetera.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In a way, my favorite calling has been Assistant Ward Clerk for Membership.  Ward members never knew it, of course, but, from a certain perspective, I got to be a part of many of the special events in their lives: births and baby blessings, baptisms and confirmations, endowments, sealings, et cetera.

Yes! What a great calling....you get to do a lot of great stuff behind the scenes that makes a big difference. Very rewarding.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I once coveted a calling. When I got it, I was taught a good lesson on why we are commanded not to covet nor to puff ourselves up.

Just to clarify..... What I mean by this is that one time a good friend was called to an important calling in our student ward. I thought I could have done it, so I was jealous and covetous. Later, I received that same calling which proved to be very difficult for me, and I learned from the Spirit not to covet or to puff myself up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/6/2019 at 4:09 PM, Metis_LDS said:

Well I served with a Branch President who had been excommunicated previously.  I know you are asking about Bishops,  but this is all I am sure of.

Branch Presidents don't have to be approved by SLC.  It's entirely up to the stake president.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/7/2019 at 4:26 PM, hope_for_things said:

Personally I have a hard time thinking that any "sins" confessed to a bishop should be held as permanent records by the church.   (with the exception of abuse and violations of the law of the land).  That all seems a little too creepy to me, as does the idea of the strengthening the members committee.  Sounds too much like the Scientologists or Big Brother.  I definitely don't like it.  

The only confessed sins that are ever transmitted to SLC are ones which result in a disciplinary council that disfellowships or excommunicates a member.  

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The only confessed sins that are ever transmitted to SLC are ones which result in a disciplinary council that disfellowships or excommunicates a member.  

Yes, that’s specifically what I was referring to.  I don’t like it, with the exception of significant illegal activity.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, that’s specifically what I was referring to.  I don’t like it, with the exception of significant illegal activity.  

Agreed. If God has forgiven them and remembers them no longer, the Church should do the same.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...