rongo

2 hours ago, Steve Thompson said:

For those interested in Ben Spackman's take on the issue of genocide in Joshua see: https://benspackman.com/2022/06/gospel-doctrine-lesson-18-joshua/#more-430.  Essentially Spackman argues that the genocide never happened.  Of course, that requires seeing parts of the books of Exodus and Joshua as non-historical.

I think when you start pulling on the thread, it becomes most of the books as non-historical --- not parts of them. 

If there was an invasion of Canaan by Israelite tribes, then there certainly would have been war atrocities (which are always called genocide in our day). When you hold their feet to the fire, most LDS higher critics acknowledge that they don't believe there ever were tribes of Israel --- that they are cultural mythical heroes that people already in Canaan later came to identify their descent and attachment to. But that isn't the end of the thread --- continued pulling unravels almost everything. It leads to the same place as the "the Book of Mormon can still be inspiring if the people, places, and events never existed/happened." Many people have long since made that peace with the Bible, in order to accommodate the opinions of the higher critics.  

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You need to read "Motel of the Mysteries." A motel from the 1980s is discovered by archaeologists in the year 4000. They excavate it like King Tut's tomb (if you know the story of that excavation, you'll notice the similarities). I was able to find a truncated version that's mainly the pictures here: https://www.plainlocal.org/userfiles/352/Classes/32796/Motel of the Mystery PDF Version.pdf

Thanks for that! I also think about the short story "By the Waters of Babylon" (where a brave mystic defies his culture and visits the abode of the gods --- which is revealed to be an ancient New York City, along with the Great God ASHING [the W and the ton had fallen away from Washington). 

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I thought of that. The sedimentation would take quite some time, wouldn't it?  

7 hours ago, Calm said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/event/teaching-in-the-saviors-way-churchwide-broadcast

It sounds like this one on Sunday will be pretty standard fare. 

In RSVPing for the zoom meeting with the general SS presidency, I was sent an agenda. It sounds like there is going to be even more of a focus on "home centered" than there is now. 

---

The Sunday School

               Focus - Home Centered Church Supported Gospel Learning

Church Supported Gospel Learning

               As a teacher or leader, what can you do differently to help class members improve in their home-centered Gospel learning?

“The Role of a Teacher”

Teaching in the Savior’s Way (read this as a Presidency)

                                             Love those you teach

                                             Teach by the Spirit

                                             Teach the Doctrine

                                             Invite Diligent Learning

               Teacher Council Meetings

Stake Sunday School Responsibilities

               Church Handbook

                              Stake SS Presidency Responsibilities – Section 6.7.1 and 6.7.1.4

                              Sunday School – Chapter 13

                              Teaching – Chapter 17

                              Teacher Council Meetings – Section 17.4

                              Annual Stake Leadership training meeting – Section 29.3.4

Stake Sunday School Presidencies should visit wards regularly to:

Thank the Teachers and Ward Sunday School Presidencies for their

               remarkable service

                              Attend Classes

                              Attend Teacher Council Meetings

                              Train ward SS presidencies

18 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The Satan anachronism is fatal for the BofM, as well. Nephi’s words on Satan are centuries too early. Actually, two millennia early since it’s really Milton and his contemporaries who gave us Nephi’s Satan. 

Forgive me if I'm missing the obvious, but are no longer a believer, @JarMan?

On 6/7/2022 at 5:15 AM, Calm said:

Which manuals…if you can share?

I was just notified that there is a zoom meeting tomorrow for all stake Sunday School presidents --- with the general Sunday School presidency. That's certainly different. 

I already know,as mentioned, that part of Sunday's broadcast (open to everyone) will be announcing the combining of the CES handbook and Teaching in the Savior's Way. I know that many here scoffed at my source saying that seminary and institute are on their way out (not overnight), but this would seem to be a step on that direction and in line with home centered. 

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

There is certainly a danger in an overemphasis on eisegesis. I think there is also real danger of assuming that the best available exegesis is a sure way to get into the mind and culture of the ancient writers. In some cases, what seems to some like naive eisegesis may actually be a better representation of the original author's intent than the most informed exegesis. I'm not saying that is always the case. It's almost certainly not. But there are a lot of clues in Restoration texts that hint at how much we are missing from the ancient world.

For instance, I'm not really very confident in the biblical scholar's ability to pin down what Isaiah was really thinking and saying in many of his oracular utterances. Those inclined towards biblical scholarship sometimes act as if they know exactly what Isaiah's immediate audience was like, and who his intended audience(s) surely were, and what his immediate culture was like, and what the immediate context of his prophecies involved, and what he thought about the layers and applications of his own prophecies. The fact is that the relevant biblical and extrabiblical texts give us very few of the types of specifics that would be needed for a strong exegetical interpretation, especially for such oracular literature. The unknowns about the text's production and redaction history causes another layer of problems, as does the fact that it is hard to tell which portions of Isaiah's prophetic utterances were shaped by him and which parts were shaped by the Lord. And that is a real problem because as soon as an omniscient being with miraculous foresight gets involved, the less a text's meaning can be confidently confined to a particular historical milieu. 

This is a real tension right now. Insistence that "context" isn't opinion doesn't really hold up --- a lot of the "context" is a scholarly opinion based on their interpretations. This is so funny --- I had a conversation with a student before lunch a few weeks ago (near the end of school) where this came up. It wasn't even a gospel discussion, and wasn't Church related, and I forget the particulars of what the student brought up, but I had replied that if the Statue of Liberty were dug up thousands of years in the future, it would probably be interpreted as a fire (torch) or sun (rays emanating from her head) goddess, even though that is not at all what it meant to us. I thought of how far distant archaeologists might interpret our chapels (obviously, the ceremonial ball courts were central to our worship, being at the center and the largest part of the building  ). I think a lot of what we think about the "context" is off --- sometimes far off. 

This becomes important from a believing Mormon perspective because there are many elements from the D&C and PoGP that paint us in a corner on literalism. We Mormons need there to have been a real Moses, a real Abraham, a real Adam and Eve. We need the Exodus and the invasion of Canaan to be real, and we need the tribes to be historical realities (many of the LDS scholars, if pinned down, would admit that they don't believe that the tribes actually existed. They would say that they were always there as Canaanites and retrofitted the history and identification with legendary tribes after the fact). This poses problems with patriarchal blessings and the teachings associated with them. There are a host of examples like this.

@JarMan's example that he's been pounding away at in this thread is a prime example. If he's correct that the LDS concept of Satan was completely foreign to OT people, what does that do to the JST and the Book of Moses? It makes it ridiculous, just pretending on the part of Joseph Smith. Restored scripture (including the temple) give a more complete and fuller picture of what ancient people thought and taught about Satan, even when this doesn't have scholarly cachet outside of Mormonism. This is why things like this, or the creation accounts simply being mythical Near Eastern texts borrowed by the Hebrews, are never going to be included in LDS curricula. 

You are dead on about Isaiah. Again, we're painted into a corner with Isaiah, because the Book of Mormon claims to contain its Isaiah writings from the brass plates, while containing portions of what scholars (including the LDS scholars) consider to be from Deutero-Isaiah (a postulated nameless man or men centuries removed from "proto-Isaiah"). 

There are very good reasons why the Church's official Sunday School, magazine, and study help material is never going to embrace and endorse secular or sectarian scholarship. 

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that's true for some hard things.  But not all.  There are some hard questions that I think we very much need to tackle in SS.  Things like "did God actually command His people to kill women and children and what do we do with these kinds of narratives in our scriptures".

I think this is a very good example of the sort of hard things that should be discussed in a Sunday School class. Which leads me to . . . 

7 hours ago, Rain said:

THIS is the biggest problem I have with the lesson I am first supposed to teach.  I am struggling so much with that genocide idea right now.  I recognize that I have very strong feelings on it because of my work with refugees.  The church always says that we should pray about things and it took everything I had to go to Heavenly Father who I know loves me deeply and all his children if he really commanded that because it feels so blasphemous to ask.  So I finally had to say "You said we should ask if we lack wisdom. It feels so wrong to be asking you this, but I lack wisdom." 

But how Come Follow Me words it just makes me angry.  That if only we had enough faith we would believe there are reasons God commanded this.  Says nothing about being translated correctly or that this is bravado language or whatever.

And yes, that anger is something I am trying to get past so I can listen to the Spirit better.

Rain, you may consider asking the class how they account for or explain the genocide commands. I'm confident that every class across the world will have a range of views (spectrum: God really did command it --- God would never do that. And hybrid views in between). With this question in particular, I think it's good for everyone to see that there is a range of views on this, and that's okay. The class (many brains and life experiences are better than one) could also be very helpful with a follow up question: how do we help someone who is very upset by this? What can be said? God will help you in the moment with what to say if genuine concerns arise, but it's not all on your shoulders. The class can be very helpful here. 

There is another group of possible concern, and that is people of a more fundamentalist mindset who are disturbed by a tendency for many people today to explain away "hard things" like this (scriptures meaning what they say, and saying what they mean) because they clash with 2022 sensibilities. It's not always the people who struggle with "hard things" who have concerns; there are also people who are concerned with a slide away from literalism due to modern sensibilities. 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Which manuals…if you can share?

Teaching in the Savior's Way is being combined with the CES manuals. They are finally letting us see how the sausage is made and letting us in on the trade secrets --- at least, that's the selling point for ElderUchtdorf's broadcast (per my SP).

42 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You and I often don't see eye-to-eye. This time, I nodded along with almost every word your wrote.

Even a broken clock . . . 

4 hours ago, manol said:

Seems to me the King Follet Sermon says the Father had a mortal existence:  "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in
yonder heavens!... God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did."

While Jesus experienced what mortal life is like, there were some important differences between Him and us (ability to be sinless, power over death, ability to fully command the elements, etc.). That's why the Sermon in the Grove (a couple of weeks after King Follett, and a week before the martyrdom, I believe) is important. That's where Joseph Smith expanded on the thought that the Father had also been a Savior, and that this pattern extends back eternally. 

God is an exalted man, in the same sense that Jesus is an exalted man. But, in a sense that no one else on earth can be. 

33 minutes ago, manol said:

So let me pose a follow-up question:  Suppose this child goes on to become a God, a creator of worlds, upon which spirit children are expected to slog it out through the experience of mortality (which you have said is more valuable to you than a "sure thing" would be)... and yet this God NEVER actually "walked the walk"?  To me, that does not seem consistent with the plan of eternal progression.

Mileage will vary on this "open question" of course, and there is disagreement and differences of opinion. My reading of the King Follett Discourse, the Sermon in the Grove, and Orson Pratt's talk on assignment from Brigham Young that was the first official public treatment of the rationale behind polygamy (near Journal of Discourses 1:60 or so) is that only Saviors become "head Gods." Under this, Elohim was a Savior, and Jehovah will become an Elohim. Exalted men and women (gods) assist with creation and provide spirit children for the Elohim. Under this understanding, looking at it from a perspective of "they didn't have the full range of mortal experience" is less of a concern, since "God's" experience wasn't exactly "mortal," either.

In my experience, most people who don't like this idea don't like the thought that they might not be able to become an Elohim. There is a wide range of thought on this, with nothing official.

2 minutes ago, manol said:

Yes!!

So if "all are alike unto God" (2 Nephi 26:33) and "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11), how is it fair to the rest of us that children who die before a certain age are automatically saved in the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 137:10)?

Because the preexistence is factored in. When we are able to see "one eternal round," it won't seem unfair at all.

It actually doesn't seem unfair to me anyway. I wouldn't trade the experiences of earth life for a "sure thing." I'm grateful that earth life is part of my experience, even when it isn't required for everyone.

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In my case, years ago, my three year old was mature enough to tell me the neighbor man, who had a son her age and my daughter played at their house (I was a naive mom and will feel guilt for the rest of my life) was at their home and he apparently put her on the counter and had her reach for candy and he touched her on her private parts. I was in the middle of loading the dishwasher when she told me, you know how you remember exactly where you are or doing when hearing shocking news or so forth? And my first call wasn't to the law force, it was to my bishop, this man's bishop, and he couldn't offer any help other than to have the man come in for an interview. The man denied it, so my next step was to call the local sheriff's department. And she was taken into an interview process without me, and they said they couldn't come right out and ask her if she was touched inappropriately, she was just shown a doll. And she didn't understand what they were doing so she didn't say what happened.

Forensic interviews with small children are tough. There was a young man who moved out of our ward before my time, but returned (not to our ward) and was living with friends. He confessed to having molested two little girls, and more shoes dropped and the number of known victim families swelled to five --- four of them formerly from the ward. The forensic interviews with the little girls weren't satisfactory, but he had apologized to at least two of the couples in person, and he had a long texting thread with one of the mothers confessing and telling how sorry he was. The county prosecutor ultimately refused to press charges --- mainly because they didn't have victim/witness testimony. I was stunned --- they had the texts to the mother (one father surreptitiously recorded a confession from him, which was probably not admissible). He did lawyer up, and the claim was that the texts were just dumb, immature kid stuff --- formally, he denied the charges. Ultimately, without victim/witness testimony, they are very leery of going to trial. In my unprofessional opinion, I wish they had taken their chances with a jury, on the strength of the texted confession. 

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why not remove historians and accountants and building maintenance and allow the righteous to work through discernment and revelation?  Why have any Family Services people?  Why did Brigham hire an architect for the temple once it had apparently been revealed?

Because building construction and bookkeeping and repairs/janitorial tasks are not really comparable to "judge in Israel" duties and responsibilities. We could just turn over pastoral care to Kirton McConkie, Family Services, etc. and try to ensure that there is no trauma, ever, but the Church would shrivel up and die with ward communities under a regime like that. 

13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don’t believe God calls unworthy people to serve. It is the mistakes of humans this happens. I think worthy people might ‘fall’ during their service. That’s on them. 

I mostly agree with this. I agree that almost always, when someone with hidden serious sins is called, it's because of a lack of discernment --- not because God actually inspired him to be called. 

What gives me pause about making this an absolute is experience. When my family moved into town after I was released as a bishop, we purposely chose the ward we moved into because of its bishop. He was on the high council, and really went above and beyond to work with and minister to people who had faced stake-level discipline. A really kind, service-oriented man. He had serious, ongoing moral sins going on, and was caught in the act by his wife. They had struggled with the infidelity throughout their marriage, but she had believed that it had long since stopped. The fact that he was doing it while serving as a bishop was DEFCON 1 for both of them, and things moved swiftly (his discipline was extra strict because of his office, as it should be --- in terms of wait time for rebaptism/reinstatement). The thing is --- God worked through him and his office. He was really inspired in several things (he had been in for a year and a half before I replaced him), and it frightened him. As we met after, he was scared and confused as to how God could have inspired him and how he could have felt the Holy Ghost while doing those sorts of things. Obviously, God honored the office and the keys, even when he wasn't worthy. The real question is whether God Himself inspired his call. Regardless, he probably wouldn't have been brought to full and complete repentance if he hadn't been a bishop at the time. 

I know of a Navajo bishop on the Navajo Nation who was an alcoholic and a terrible administrator (meetings were haphazard and infrequent, and a lot fell through the cracks). It was a real trial for the people in the ward with Church experience in other places off the rez, but they were struck after the fact that every single one of his many children served missions and were sealed in the temple (a good track record for any family, but almost unheard of among his people). It's possible, in my mind, that God had a larger goal in placing him in a position he was unworthy and unsuited for, and which the ward suffered in many ways for, in order to bring to pass larger things that would ripple through generations. 

I would not extend this to a bishop abusing children or anything like that. Where obvious lack of or breakdown in discernment and revelation like that happens, the question for me becomes why God didn't intervene and make things very clear before he was put into a calling like that. I do not believe that God would sacrifice children or parents in order to bring to pass repentance for that bishop. 

40 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Wouldn’t a big mistake by a stake President be calling a Bishop who was a swindler? A Bishop calling a rapist as a counselor? 

Do you really believe God would inspire those callings? 

I don’t. Sometimes inspiration is not clear or we think we are doing God’s will but it’s really our will. Doesn’t mean the Bishop or the Stake President is completely incompetent. 

In my experiences, it was Bishops the handling of  situations that hurt my family. Some actions had long term repercussions that we still deal with. A loss of trust that has been very difficult to restore due to ongoing issues. These were not bad men or bad people but maybe in over their head. 

This gets into discernment, which is a separate (but also difficult) issue. Unless he was known to be a swindler, but was called, anyway, and then it is incompetence, in my book. 

I've shared this before, but my counselor was called in by a Seventy when they lived in Mapleton. They were thinking of calling a man to be stake president, but there had been some concerns expressed about his business practices. He was recommended as someone who could speak with some knowledge about him. He told him frankly that he also had grave concerns about his honesty in business, and strongly recommended not calling him. He was asked if he were to be called, would he sustain him. He replied that, having told what he knew and believed, if he were called anyway, then he would sustain him. The man was sustained as stake president, and a week later, fled the country on the heels of indictments because of business fraud. 

I consider this to be incompetent on the part of the Seventy who called him. I also don't think an ombudsman oversight system over calls issued by general authorities would be appropriate, or would work. If that ever came to be the case, then we should just turn over running the Church to Kirton McConkie. To me, the benefits and blessings of real discernment outweigh the outlier cases when there are breakdowns. This can be a hard statement, because the single most difficult question for us to answer (making any other faith crisis question pale in comparison, in my view) is why God allows unspeakable things to be done by men called by prophesy and revelation. Part of the answer is the standard answers to the Problem of Evil (God doesn't remote control people, leaders are fallible, everyone has his agency, etc.), but these do not satisfactorily explain why God wouldn't intervene if a grossly unworthy man were called to a position where he continued to commit gross wickedness. It's the most difficult problem to explain, especially to victims, if he has any. 

Despite this, the benefits and blessings that come from bona fide discernment and revelation in calls are well worth the breakdowns that God allows, in my book. I don't like the idea of trying to eliminate "risk" with guardrails is a good idea, because it would be a system "beneath our privileges" (in the main, not in individual outlier cases). 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My very competent father listened to a competent friend of his who had gotten overly excited about a piece of property and my dad lost a good chuck of money because the area was never developed. My mother had counseled him not to buy it.  I have a relative with an excellent driving record who crashed his car because he made the choice to push himself to get to their destination that day and he fell asleep and unfortunately reduced his passenger to the level of a 6 year old for the rest of her life.  My husband is a very competent and safe motorcyclist, but was anxious to get to work and came too close behind a car which suddenly turned in front of him, giving him a broken rib and punctured lung because he had decided to carry his laptop in a bag on his side that day and fell on it when he had to lay his bike down to avoid collision.

Thank you for the thought and time you put into these examples!

I think investment mistakes, vehicle accidents, etc. are a completely different discussion than your examples below (ecclesiastical decisions). 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Very competent, very sharp church leaders I was personally acquainted allowed an unrepentant apostate and adulterer to teach youth because they chose to believe his no doubt highly persuasive public displays of repentance while choosing to dismiss the claims of the woman he had abused and continued to harass.

Taking this at face value (assuming that all details are as represented here), I would say that this is an example of incompetence. Especially if the continued harassment was known (I assume that they didn't know about it). 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

In another case in an old ward, a very competent bishop chose to follow standard policy even though exceptions were allowed and it resulted in a special needs child and his mother having to miss church completely because they wouldn’t make necessary adjustments for him.  This was a major hardship for the mother who depended on church in many ways as well as it isolated the child.

Judgment calls are "ground zero" when it comes to complaints about leaders. This one is interesting, in that the complaint is that policy was followed instead of the desired exception. What "necessary adjustments" were they wanting, without which they had "to miss church completely?" Just curious. 

ETA: Exceptions always seem reasonable and necessary when they have to do with us. My experience (and I have favored and advocated exceptions before) is that they rarely work out. I've come to feel that exceptions should be exceptional. 

This is interesting timing because my son will be baptizing his friend in our ward on Saturday. She's been attending church with us, and has been taught in our home. She lives outside of our mission and in a different city, and I still feel that she should have been taught and baptized in her home ward (they were very willing, and excited to fellowship her). We met her mother at graduation last night (she's 18, her mother isn't thrilled about her conversion, and her grandmother doesn't know yet. Extremely anti-Mormon), and her home situation was a factor in her not wanting to be taught or attending church in her city. The two mission presidents and the two bishops all decided and agreed that she should be baptized in our ward, and we're going to do everything we can to help her stay active (she and a large number of my son's friend group, member and non-member, are following him to NAU for school. They have good student wards there, and this group of school friends is going to be a really good addition). But, I still don't think the exception should have been made. I think my son should have gone and attended church in her city with her while she was being fellowshipped and integrated. 

I've never had boundary exceptions work out, even when they appear "on paper" and with common sense to be "can't miss." I've grown to be really careful with boundary exceptions and exceptions in general. 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

In the case of Meadowchik, it sounds like her bishop was quite good and competent, which is why she trusted him when he stepped out of his comfort zone and interfered with a legal dispute, the result was increased danger for her family and a withdrawal of access to part of the support system normally given to faithful members, the temple.

Interfering with a legal/landlord-tenant dispute I would classify as incompetent. And applying ecclesiastical sanctions based on that compounds that. 

---

I don't think that the proposed ombudsman process would have affected the first two. If judgment calls by leaders are micromanaged by bureaucrats, there would be a growing shift towards the office assuming more and more of the role of a bishop. I do think that training, chastisement, etc. would probably ensue in the first example --- especially given the focus on abuse and harassment over the last two decades. 

I think that the proposed ombudsman process would probably have been helpful in Meadowchick's case. What I don't understand about it is why the leaders involved didn't meet with both parties at the same time (maybe they did, and I'm wrong about that). I've found it helpful when working with two parties who contradict and refute each other's story to get them together and hammer it out in real time. When the leader meets separately and carries the message of "Well, they said this is what happened. Oh? Hmmm, I'll have to tell them that and ask about this" back and forth, it's easier for the party in the wrong to obfuscate and muddy the water. It's a lot harder to do that when there is real time denial, confirmation, or confrontation. Of course, they should probably not have been refereeing a landlord/tenant dispute in the first place. 

I don't think a third party is going to overrule very many leader judgment calls, unless it is very clear that they are wrong (or they shouldn't be involved with it in the first place).

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Like Mark Hoffman say. 

I know general information about the Mark Hoffman saga, but not details. Did his bishop trust him as far as Church callings? Was his bishop involved in Hoffman's documents trade (as an intermediary, making introductions, etc.)? Or, are you referring to the Brethren not knowing that he was a fraud? 

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Trusting the wrong person?

Can you flesh out the hypothetical? Do you mean, trusting person A, when he should have trusted person B (or remained neutral)? Or something else? 

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because someone who is competent never makes a big mistake?

Isn't a "big" mistake (as opposed to "small mistakes," which everyone makes) the opposite of "competent?" Isn't being able to avoid big mistakes what competent means? 

Can you think of some hypothetical (or maybe not-so-hypothtical) examples of big mistakes that an otherwise competent bishop/stake president could make?

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

First, I think what might be helpful is if we can all acknowledge that a bishop or stake president does not have to be "bad, incompetent, or awful" to do great harm.  It's hard to admit that we can be both good intentioned and also hurt people greatly, but since it's the truth, admitting it is a necessary step to fixing it.

When the leaders are "good and competent," but still "do great harm," then it is from the perspective of the person who feels harmed. We're talking here mainly about giving and taking offense (and receiving it). It wasn't due to not following policy, or following policy "badly" (incompetence). In these cases, all that really can be done (and all that the ombudsman process is likely to result in, anyway), is listening, validation, and apologizing. I think that in the vast majority of cases like this, leaders already do (or learn to do) this on their own. It seems like what is being proposed is to have more "training" and mandatory courses for leaders, with an independent "complaint department" that would follow-up with the accused leaders when there are complaints. I think that this would really just end up leading to what happens in the vast majority of "hurt feelings" cases without this process. The outliers are going to be there in about the same numbers, anyway. 

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Second, if we really believe Christ when He outlined the importance of leaving the 99 to save the one, should we be careful not to let outlier exceptions drive policy?  You say that as if it's a given--and maybe in the business world or some other secular organization it is--but when we are talking about people's souls, I don't think that argument holds up.  At all.

I don't think leaving the 99 for the one means that we should tailor and shape policy, systems, and processes for a global church for these rare (but harrowing to the starfish) outlier cases. I don't think "teaching the rule, and dealing with the exception case-by-case," as President Oaks has taught, means that we are not ministering to the one. By definition, leaving the 99 and ministering to the one means that the "default setting" is geared to the 99 (you wouldn't have to leave the 99 --- venture into "exception territory" --- otherwise). To "let outlier exceptions drive policy," as you put it, wouldn't be a good thing for the 99 or for the one, either, in the long run, I think. It would be like letting the needs of the self-contained life skills students drive policy, systems, and processes for an entire school of thousands of students who aren't in that boat. Maybe the analogy isn't the best, but it illustrates how the outlier driving policy for the vast majority isn't really a good way to run anything. And, it's not like the needs of the smaller population aren't being addressed when the policy is driven by the needs of the non-outliers. 

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Put in an elderly missionary couple in this position as independent investigator and you will get fewer elder missionary couples.

At least, few who would want to do that (senior couples get to pick what they do and where they go). 

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have seen cases where stake presidencies tend to side with members routinely over bishops when complained to and it is not a good situation either. Ward leadership lives like they are under perpetual threat of a veto killing any activity or program and no one is motivated to do much of anything. People refuse to accept callings or ask for releases. It is a mess.

This is a very good point. There has been a presumption here that the good ol' boys network always circles the wagons and looks out after its own. You are correct that knee-jerk agreeing with complaining members about bishops is also not a good thing. 

When I was called a second time, I replaced a bishop who was disciplined and had left an $80,000 deficit in fast offerings. There were six families who needed to be "taught welfare principles" (cut off --- they were abusing the system and making no effort for their situation to be short-term, even though they had the ability and opportunities to). This resulted in death threats, the need to park my car in the driveway on other streets, etc. Some of these resulted in letters written to the stake president and area seventy, and fortunately in my case, these were all handled properly. Their complaints were taken seriously, and I was asked to respond (including providing some records, like assistance given and bank statement copies), but the process was reasonable for everyone involved. I could see this ombudsman system easily being "weaponized" and bishops being harassed with never-ending frivolous "discovery" and queries (demands that they justify themselves) from people who are upset and want different outcomes. 

I don't think this would be the panacea that some people think it would be, and I also don't think it would really mitigate bona fide cases of "ecclesiastical malfeasance and malpractice." The poor ye shall always have with you . . . 

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't really see it as a process to make sure that the accuser is happy with the outcome.  

Not in the lofty hypothetical discussion of it on a message board, but I think that is exactly what the process would be used for, if implemented. 

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I see it as a way to take the need to "represent yourself" out of the process (both for the accuser and the accused).  Doing so doesn't guarantee justice, mercy, or happiness in the end but--if Danzo is correct--it makes it a more likely outcome than the old system.

I question this in practical terms. I'm fortunate to not have been embroiled in situations like these, while I know that they do exist and do happen. I think we need to be careful about letting the outlier exceptions drive policy and process for the whole. I think that the sorts of outrageous examples that have been discussed here are completely outside of the experience of most members. Granted, when it does hit home personally, then it matters a great deal to you (starfish analogy). But, adding layers of training, certification, bureaucracy, systems, processes, etc. very rarely are better, in my experience. They make people feel better, and give the appearance of "something being done," but I think the original potential and actual problems still exist, with or without the "new and improved" process or system. 

I'm not against improvement or progress, per se, if I feel that it would actually be improvement or progress, but I really don't think this ombudsman idea would really do what some people think it would. I think the actual and perceived outcomes would largely be the same as they would without it. 

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This idea that the system that we have right now is the very best that we can do and so it's useless to try to improve it in any way because nothing would be better, is laughable to me.  I'm pretty sure that we have no reason to think that we've reached peak performance levels on this topic. 

I know that none of us can really pin a number on this, but how much of a problem do you think "bad, incompetent, awful" bishops and stake presidents really is? How many "starfish" are there, really? Just for fun, if we imagine a line with "dumpster fire" on one end, and "Leibniz/Dr. Pangloss --- best of all possible worlds" on the other, where would you put the general situation on that line? I would be much closer to "best" than I would to "tear it down." Do you think things really are that bad for most people?