Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boanerges

Qualification for bishop

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

President Oaks agrees with you.  That is why our Father in Heaven has given us prophets and apostles.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng

I don’t see the similarity.  I’m appealing to reason, study, critical thinking, and I don’t read any of that in this Oaks talk.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/9/2019 at 2:09 PM, bluebell said:

It could be a situation of wanting to have records so that repeat offenders can be held more accountable.  If someone keeps breaking the law of chastity, for example, then it might be better for the church to have a record of that so that when a bishop, not knowing the person's past, needs to help that person repent they can have all of the information that they need to know how best to do that (or what discipline will be most appropriate).

Are we talking about repentance or penance? In the church we tend to conflate the two, but our theology actually doesn't include penance (although policy does seem to). Jesus forgave everyone who asked, and even some who didn't ask, on the spot. If repentance means change or turning toward God and Christ (and that is what it means) only the individual doing the repentance knows how complete it is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ha!  Thats the last job I would want to have.  

I'm just pointing out problems that I think complicate what you're saying.  It seems to me like you're viewing our topic through rose colored glasses, although I have a hard time believing you actually view things this way because of how well read and experienced you are.  Perhaps you're just not as concerned about the problems as I am.  

I make Kant as uber simple as I can, and then you turn it into a cartoon

I suggest you read it for yourself

Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

Good luck

And no, I am not concerned because the problem doesn't exist.

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I make Kant as uber simple as I can, and then you turn it into a cartoon

I suggest you read it for yourself

Metaphysics of Morals

Good luck

And no, I am not concerned because the problem doesn't exist.

How did I turn Kant into a cartoon?  Do you think I wasn’t being respectful or serious in our exchange?  I’m confused.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, the golden rule is great, but it seems to have a pretty poor track record with respect to people actually following it throughout history.  Going back to Kant's categorical imperative seems to introduce this component of groups coming to a collective agreement using reason to determine what is best, which also seems to run against your idea that anyone can be trusted to just do "what works" based on their own individual subjective perspective.  

There.

The italicized portion is the direct opposite of what Kant is saying.

Your comment is irrelevant.  There IS no "collective agreement", for Kant it is Pure Reason, that universalizable maxims are objectively true.  One rule for all mankind- that is the theory

Of course evil still exists.  We have agency.  We can choose to disobey the Prime Directive, but then the consequences you discuss happen.

To make it easy for you to understand I made the goldren rule into something you could understand and that was evolution.

lt is clear that humans need peace to make and grow babies.  That gives an objective reason (in my opinion) to understand Kant's philosophy in a modern context for you, or so I thought.

I believe both views are true in different contexts, and are paraconsistent.   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

But I was avoiding all that.  I have a life to live, believe it or not.  ;)  I really so not want this to go on for days as usual.

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There.

The italicized portion is the direct opposite of what Kant is saying.

Your comment is irrelevant.  There IS no "collective agreement", for Kant it is Pure Reason, that universalizable maxims are objectively true.  One rule for all mankind- that is the theory

Of course evil still exists.  We have agency.  We can choose to disobey the Prime Directive, but then the consequences you discuss happen.

To make it easy for you to understand I made the goldren rule into something you could understand and that was evolution.

lt is clear that humans need peace to make and grow babies.  That gives an objective reason (in my opinion) to understand Kant's philosophy in a modern context for you, or so I thought.

I believe both views are true in different contexts, and are paraconsistent.   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

But I was avoiding all that.  I have a life to live, believe it or not.  ;)  I really so not want this to go on for days as usual.

Thanks for clarifying my mistaken understanding of Kant, I certainly don't claim to understand these complicated concepts that well.  The Categorical Imperitive wiki article makes my head spin a bit as I read and re-read it to be honest. 

Just tell me if you think I'm understanding a philosopher wrong, I won't take offense or even argue the point, I know that I'm an extreme novice on philosophy.  Thats a lot better and less judgmental than imparting bad motives towards me. 

Also, if you get tired of responding to my posts, then don't respond for a while, or at all.  I'm sorry if this is frustrating to you.  This is a thread you started, so I assumed you like participation, but perhaps its my lack of education on the topic that is frustrating.  Whatever the case, we're good, please don't feel any pressure from my end.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/10/2019 at 4:06 PM, Boanerges said:

Are we talking about repentance or penance? In the church we tend to conflate the two, but our theology actually doesn't include penance (although policy does seem to). Jesus forgave everyone who asked, and even some who didn't ask, on the spot. If repentance means change or turning toward God and Christ (and that is what it means) only the individual doing the repentance knows how complete it is.

I'm talking about repentance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2019 at 7:30 AM, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for clarifying my mistaken understanding of Kant, I certainly don't claim to understand these complicated concepts that well.  The Categorical Imperitive wiki article makes my head spin a bit as I read and re-read it to be honest. 

Just tell me if you think I'm understanding a philosopher wrong, I won't take offense or even argue the point, I know that I'm an extreme novice on philosophy.  Thats a lot better and less judgmental than imparting bad motives towards me. 

Also, if you get tired of responding to my posts, then don't respond for a while, or at all.  I'm sorry if this is frustrating to you.  This is a thread you started, so I assumed you like participation, but perhaps its my lack of education on the topic that is frustrating.  Whatever the case, we're good, please don't feel any pressure from my end.  

No, look at the title and op

It is the massive derailment I was trying to avoid 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm talking about repentance.

How is anyone, except the individual doing the repentance/metanoeo/change, supposed to know whether someone else has "completed" repentance? I can see that penance might be measured (the person said x number of Hail Marys as required) but I don't see how repentance can be measured other than the individual continuing to sin - but we all sin. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, look at the title and op

It is the massive derailment I was trying to avoid 

I got this thread mixed up with another in my mind.  But either way, if responding to my posts is a massive derailment for you, then don't respond.  Don't sweat it.  

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I got this thread mixed up with another in my mind.  But either way, if responding to my posts is a massive derailment for you, then don't respond.  Don't sweat it.  

No, that's not what I said. I never said that responding to your post was a derailment.I made the original comment and said at that time I did not want to make a derailment and for others perhaps to start a new thread. We stayed on that thread. Go back and look.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Boanerges said:

How is anyone, except the individual doing the repentance/metanoeo/change, supposed to know whether someone else has "completed" repentance? I can see that penance might be measured (the person said x number of Hail Marys as required) but I don't see how repentance can be measured other than the individual continuing to sin - but we all sin. 

What I meant was that someone who keeps breaking the law of chastity, for example, is probably going to have a different path to repentance set up by the bishop than someone who has broken it once.  Beyond that, it is the bishop's job to declare when someone has repented as far as the church is concerned.  You are right that ultimately repentance is between the sinner and Christ but as a judge in Israel, bishop's do have a role in that in regards to serious sins.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I think Hugh Nibley hit the nail on the head about his idea of Leadership to management:the Fatal Shift. I dunno, it seems to me that Bishops now are basically the ward managers-making sure the auxillaries are staffed and things are running copasetic. They take direction from the Stake who gets it from the 70, so I don't know how much autonomy these callings really have

Share this post


Link to post

I have experienced bishops who are leaders and those who are managers.  I don't think it varies that much from the general population.

  • Like 2

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...