Neo-Fence-Sitter Theory: Resurrecting a Radioactive Relic

[Calm]

2 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Even the Church has said that we chose who would be our family

Doctrinally though?  Or is it some leaders’ extrapolation of revelation and doctrine?

Those who are born into abusive families…that can be read as being dismissive, saying it’s their own fault for making that choice.  However, it’s usually pitched as being willing to suffer for others, being witnesses of others’ agency choosing wickedness or something (wickedness can’t exist unless one is hurting another in some fashion), but I find it hard to imagine how an infant/child that is tortured and killed by family members, thrown out, starved, sold into slavery because their parents are into drugs or just sick are somehow needed since Christ pretty much said the thought is the deed (look on a woman with lust is committing adultery).

[blackstrap]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Doctrinally though?  

Pretty sure it is not doctrine. As Nehor has said , it opens a serious can of worms.( yes, I know that was not what was ' said' )

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Were people born in other dispensations not meant to be leaders in God’s great work?

When "God's great work" was not upon the earth, or only among a small subset of people, those not part of that work couldn't be leaders in His work. But where and when His work was going on, He raised up leaders. And when and where it wasn't going on, temporal leaders rose up, or were raised up. 

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also, how can everyone be a leader?

Everyone is his or her own leader, if not a leader over others. Even the least intellectual among us makes choices that show who we are. That is what agency is all about. Not everyone can be a leader here in mortality. But all are capable of it in eternity. Why else would they be put here? The only NPCs are the non-human beings.

 

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Doctrinally though?  Or is it some leaders’ extrapolation of revelation and doctrine?

Those who are born into abusive families…that can be read as being dismissive, saying it’s their own fault for making that choice.  However, it’s usually pitched as being willing to suffer for others, being witnesses of others’ agency choosing wickedness or something (wickedness can’t exist unless one is hurting another in some fashion), but I find it hard to imagine how an infant/child that is tortured and killed by family members, thrown out, starved, sold into slavery because their parents are into drugs or just sick are somehow needed since Christ pretty much said the thought is the deed (look on a woman with lust is committing adultery).

It seems like the divine right of kings and nobility with extra steps. It feels good to those who are doing well in life and allows you to accept the suffering of others as chosen or deserved or ordained by God.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

When "God's great work" was not upon the earth, or only among a small subset of people, those not part of that work couldn't be leaders in His work. But where and when His work was going on, He raised up leaders. And when and where it wasn't going on, temporal leaders rose up, or were raised up. 

A lot of temporal leaders were terrible. Most of them in fact. If that is God’s work I am unimpressed.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Everyone is his or her own leader, if not a leader over others. Even the least intellectual among us makes choices that show who we are. That is what agency is all about. Not everyone can be a leader here in mortality. But all are capable of it in eternity. Why else would they be put here? The only NPCs are the non-human beings.

That is not what leadership means. That is the kind of thing you say about leadership if you are a self-help guru trying to motivate people to take charge of their life. Might be useful in that case but it is a bad description of reality.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A lot of temporal leaders were terrible. Most of them in fact. If that is God’s work I am unimpressed.

And a lot of temporal leaders were wonderful. What of it? Some guy taking over somewhere isn't necessarily God's work, but it could be, couldn't it? 

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not what leadership means. That is the kind of thing you say about leadership if you are a self-help guru trying to motivate people to take charge of their life. Might be useful in that case but it is a bad description of reality.

Self-help guru? Oh, my. Reality is what is real. If you have no one else to lead but yourself, then you can use the same principles to do it, and achieve success. The true leader's first responsibility is to control/lead him/herself. If they cannot do so, then they have no business leading. I'm not guru-ing. I'm stating a fact. And leadership is not confined to large organizations. Not only nations, but small communities need good leaders. What is the smallest community?

When David O. McKay said "No other success can compensate for failure in the home," what was the failure he spoke of? The failure was of leadership. Either the father, the mother, or both failed in their leadership. Have you seen families where either or both parents just let their kids run riot -- or contrariwise, oppressed their children, or each other, such that their lack of leadership produced children who were unable to cope on their own? There are also cases where one parent is a fumbling, ineffective non-entity, and the other parent manages to pull the whole family together, and despite lack of support from the other parent manages to succeed with their children. That is leadership. And let's not forget single-parent families whose parent exhibits effective leadership despite lack of a partner, and still produces successful children. And there are even families where either or both parents are disengaged or ineffective, and one of the older children manages to exhibit enough leadership to hold things together.

D&C 121:39 says "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." This is bad leadership. 

Good leadership is: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." And if these characteristics can be exhibited by a leader, even one who never even heard of the priesthood, they will likely be successful. Because these are universal principles of leadership.

I suppose you know all that.

May I say parenthetically that cynicism never accomplishes much of anything, except to spread bitterness?