Callings given to imperfect human beings

[MustardSeed]

CV75 I referred in the OP to another thread started by Bluebell.  She requested her thread not be derailed to discuss how callings could possibly be inspired if Murdock has been called as a bishop with prior offenses in his record.  

Smac had mentioned Judas being called, in Bluebells thread, and was asked to stop.    I referred to that in this OP but have no problem personally with conversation circling back to sex offenders being put in positions of trust.  It’s all grist for this mill.  IMO. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Out of respect to Bluebells thread request to remain on topic: 

Judas was imperfect.  Did the Savior know he would be a traitor when he called him? 

Are human imperfections proof that callings are not made through revelation? 

 

That is a interesting, and difficult question. Jesus (according to Biblical scripture) learned “line upon line”, just as we do, to a degree. He also progressed according to grace as well, until as scripture also states, he “became” perfected, and “became” our Savior, “through the things that he suffered”. Jesus Christ, also cried out while on the cross, “my God, my God, why has thou forsaken me”. So, it is clear, there are some things he did not know, and knowing that Judas would betray him, might be one. He did know on the night that Judas would betray him. But I think that developed over having spent years with, Judas. 

God has always done, and always must call flawed men, and women, because other than Jesus Christ, it is all he has to work with. The Lord, through our leaders, and beginning with our leaders, “does not call the qualified, but qualifies those he calls”. 

[MustardSeed]

Where did we get the idea then that our leadership is so “perfect” , or needs to be, if there are so many references in scripture like have been quoted here that say otherwise?

How can we influence change of view in a local level? 

[strappinglad]

Some of this brings up questions that have tickled people, particularly philosophers, for millenia. How much does God know  and when did He know it? Is there really free will ? Why does God allow evil in the world.? 

I try to remember that a man can be honorable and righteous for 70 years and then fall. Also a man can be dishonorable and wicked for 70 years and then sincerely repent and change. The scriptures tell us which gets the gold star. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

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."

Clarify please.  What would you call it if not an error of judgment?

Edited August 23, 2019 by Calm

[Rain]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Where did we get the idea then that our leadership is so “perfect” , or needs to be, if there are so many references in scripture like have been quoted here that say otherwise?

How can we influence change of view in a local level? 

Because we teach that as we do the things through the empowerment of the atonement we become worthy to receive the best and most clear spiritual reception. We learn through scripture stories of how prophets were cleansed and now speak, sometimes face to face, with God. We assume that means they must be more righteous than the rest of us, but I think often it means they just have a different calling. 

We can all look at our lives and see times when we were more in tune and sometimes that lines up with callings because we need more help so we do what we can to grow closer to the Lord. We assume that means the prophet works the hardest at it because he is responsible for the whole church, but I think if you look around you can find people in callings with lesser scope or with no callings you may find people who are close to being angels and are just as close to God.

And that's really where the difference lies - specific callings don't mean you are closer to God. They mean you have different authority and calling to magnify.

 

[rodheadlee]

I think sometimes evil must be fulfilled. For instance Pharaoh hardened his heart until he let Moses's people go. Evil must be brought to conclusion to convict the guilty. How we handle being a victim is important to do we Harden our hearts or do we turn to Heavenly Father for comfort and safety which cannot be complete until the millennium. Even after a thousand years of Christ reign on Earth Satan will be let loose one last time to weed out out the rebellious.

Edited August 23, 2019 by rodheadlee

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Out of respect to Bluebells thread request to remain on topic: 

Judas was imperfect.  Did the Savior know he would be a traitor when he called him? 

Are human imperfections proof that callings are not made through revelation? 

 

We believe that what others call the "Fall" was in fact part of the plan from the beginning.  

Without Judas there would not have been an atonement.  

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, is God incapable of identifying future transgressions to prevent a child from becoming the prey of a sexual predator in waiting?  

  Agency means God cannot stop evil from happening.  Foreknowledge is not predestination

[JLHPROF]

My opinion- God sometimes calls men he knows will do wrong to test our faith and the faith of the one that calls them.

I think Joseph giving authority to a man like John C. Bennett perfectly exemplified this principle.  It tested a great many people including Joseph.  Yet D&C 124 stands as revelation.

They also have agency to overcome their nature.

The list of men who were called by revelation and later sinned is long.  That doesn't make the revelations in error at all.

[Meadowchik]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My opinion- God sometimes calls men he knows will do wrong to test our faith and the faith of the one that calls them.

I think Joseph giving authority to a man like John C. Bennett perfectly exemplified this principle.  It tested a great many people including Joseph.  Yet D&C 124 stands as revelation.

They also have agency to overcome their nature.

The list of men who were called by revelation and later sinned is long.  That doesn't make the revelations in error at all.

What does this imply regarding being wary of sheep who are inwardly ravening wolves and reveal it to us by their fruits?

[CV75]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

Exactly.  But I'll give CV75 the benefit of the doubt here.  Maybe he missed that thread and also missed all the posts before mine discussing sexual abuse or sexual predators.

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.

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

You should embroider that on a pillow and sell it at Deseret Book.

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.

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Clarify please.  What would you call it if not an error of judgment?

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.

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

A bishop who knowingly calls a sex abuser is not making a mistake.

That depends on what the calling is, IMO (and other known circumstances).  Do I believe someone who is a known sex abuser should never be allowed to serve in a calling?  No.

But I do believe there needs to be a great deal of caution and consideration given regarding where they are asked to serve.

This protects the church as well.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What does this imply regarding being wary of sheep who are inwardly ravening wolves and reveal it to us by their fruits?

Your approach seems to be to kill all the sheep just in case.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Do I believe someone who is a known sex abuser should never be allowed to serve in a calling?  No.

But I do believe there needs to be a great deal of caution and consideration given regarding where they are asked to serve.

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.

 

[sjdawg]

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm actually starting a mutual fund called "Higher Calling Investments."

All my stock picks will be made through inspiration, although some won't be.  But you can trust me because I have special guidance from God for the inspired picks.  Your money is safe with me.

But like I said, not all my picks will be the inspired ones.  Some will just be regular uninspired stock picks like everyone else makes.  You can tell the difference because the inspired ones will be the ones that make money, and the uninspired ones will be the ones that lose money.  The break-even picks are also inspired because sometimes God just wants us to break even.

If this sounds like all the other mutual funds that also sometimes make money and sometimes lose money, that's because even though I have a special conduit to God regarding stock picks, He doesn't want everyone to know.  I mean, He wants them to "know" because I'm telling them and they believe me, but he doesn't want them to know-know because all the picks make money. 

That's just the way it works with God and stock picks.

 

I'd like to invest 10% of my future income in Higher Calling Investments.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

CV75 I referred in the OP to another thread started by Bluebell.  She requested her thread not be derailed to discuss how callings could possibly be inspired if Murdock has been called as a bishop with prior offenses in his record.  

Smac had mentioned Judas being called, in Bluebells thread, and was asked to stop.    I referred to that in this OP but have no problem personally with conversation circling back to sex offenders being put in positions of trust.  It’s all grist for this mill.  IMO. 

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.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Your approach seems to be to kill all the sheep just in case.

Why would you say that?

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

I intended to paint with a broader brush than a simple focus on SA but wanted to also leave discussion open to include the reference to the dressing room debacle. The point was to help Bluebells post stay focused. 

*If I need to clarify, * I do not believe this bishop’s call was inspired, as evidenced by his dangerous proclivities. 

I also have stated that I believe God is less involved than we seem to need him to be. 

And if I need to clarify, “human imperfections” was used to include all behaviors like quirks, personality challenges, sins and crimes- for purpose of the conversation. 

I hope the intent of the thread is now clear. 

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why would you say that?

Your repeated insinuations that all priesthood leaders are grooming children for sex predators.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Your repeated insinuations that all priesthood leaders are grooming children for sex predators.

Uh huh. It might be more productive for you to simply engage in the conversation, if you want to be productive. I am open to reason, and am interested in it. No, you are certainly wrong, a question about the implications of that cautionary scripture is about protecting the sheep in the fold, and not killing anyone.

Perhaps you'd also benefit from researching systemic harm generally, and how we as human beings can perpetuate systems that harm individuals. If there is something systemic that is harming people, and I am perpetuating the harm and can change, I'd like to know.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I am open to reason, and am interested in it.

CFR

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

CFR

Try me.

[cinepro]

In the end, I think the best (and inevitable) thing for the Church to do is this.

Pretend that there is no discernment or inspiration with callings.  While there may be times when a leader feels that there is some discernment or inspiration happening, pretend that every calling is being made based solely on the mental faculties and knowledge of those making the call. 

This means background checks, training, but most of all, the public acknowledgement to the members that this is how things are being done.  The ideas about a "gift of discernment" will go the way of the gift of "speaking in tongues."  A hundred years from now, scholars will say "Hey, did you know that LDS leaders used to think that God was telling them who to call to positions instead of them just figuring it out themselves" and people will say "Huh, that's weird.  I wonder why they thought that?"

Once the leaders stop thinking they can read minds (they can't) and the members stop expecting them to (they should), things will get much better.  Not that we won't still have sexual deviants called as Bishops and Nursery leaders, but when it happens, people just won't be so surprised.  Because that's just what happens, no matter how careful you are.

Edited August 23, 2019 by cinepro

[MustardSeed]

People.  I’m out of popcorn with this thread.