Buzzard Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I think you're misrepresenting Orthodox Judaism. Overgeneralizing, certainly. Misrepresenting, I plead not guilty. What is the Talmud, if not a fence around the Torah consisting of centuries of rabbinical opinion as to every facet of Jewish life?
The Nehor Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 That's precisely the problem. It's not really "that easy" for someone who wants to stay actively engaged in the church.Then you get to make a choice. Gotta love that agency.
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I was just pointing out that;-Not every church policy is written in the scriptures, elucidated in a handbook, or even remains the same. I think that for something to be church policy it has to be written in a handbook or otherwise published by the Brethren. For me, that's what defines policy. Traditions, even those that have been passed down for decades or generations, are not policy. Scriptures contain doctrine. Not policy. IMO. -Bishops following the spirit is not just part of the worthiness interview process, it's the heart of that process. What may be comfortable and appropriate for one youth may traumatize another. I believe that the Spirit would not prompt a Bishop to do anything that would traumatize a child. I assume you'd agree. -Dehlin only seems to like one thing about the church, and that's to complain about it. I've yet to hear a valid one, so I'm through listening to him. That has not been my impression of him. But if his writings and interviews don't give you intellectual or spiritual food for thought -- than, by all means, don't waste your time.
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Then you get to make a choice. Gotta love that agency. I think it's just that kind of false dichotomy that Dehlin and others are trying to eliminate. As long as I've listened to him, he has tried to highlight ways that church members can work through or around issues within the church that are troubling to them.
The Nehor Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I believe that the Spirit would not prompt a Bishop to do anything that would traumatize a child. I assume you'd agree.I would suggest a perusal of Jacob's address at the temple where he laments that what he is about to do will cause emotional pain to both women and children but does it anyway.I think it's just that kind of false dichotomy that Dehlin and others are trying to eliminate. As long as I've listened to him, he has tried to highlight ways that church members can work through or around issues within the church that are troubling to them.It is not a false dichotomy. There currently is no middle ground to fuss over. I doubt Dehlin will create any.
Senator Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 That's precisely the problem. It's not really "that easy" for someone who wants to stay actively engaged in the church. Then I would have to ask, why that someone wants to stay actively engaged in the church?
Senator Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 It is not a false dichotomy. There currently is no middle ground to fuss over. I doubt Dehlin will create any. Either **** or get of the pot, right? I'm tiring of all this diplomacy. Let's keep this kind of thing off the board even if the language is camoflauged.
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Then I would have to ask, why that someone wants to stay actively engaged in the church? A testimony of the restoration.
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I would suggest a perusal of Jacob's address at the temple where he laments that what he is about to do will cause emotional pain to both women and children but does it anyway.It is not a false dichotomy. There currently is no middle ground to fuss over. I doubt Dehlin will create any. I don't really see how Jacob's address at the temple is an accurate comparison. No middle ground? No change to be created? Are you and I in the same church?
Senator Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 A testimony of the restoration. A testimony of the restoration as the church is, or a testimony of the restoration of the church as you would like it to be?
The Nehor Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I don't really see how Jacob's address at the temple is an accurate comparison. No middle ground? No change to be created? Are you and I in the same church?I did not use it as a comparison. You said a bishop would never say something that would traumatize a child and I showed a prophet doing so. It is not entirely analogous to the situation in question. But you were the one who generalized.As to being in the same church, I am a translated visitor from the City of Enoch sent to liven things up down here. So we are technically not in the same church (ours is called the Church of the Holy Fishcake) but it is the same gospel. 1
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I did not use it as a comparison. You said a bishop would never say something that would traumatize a child and I showed a prophet doing so. It is not entirely analogous to the situation in question. But you were the one who generalized.As to being in the same church, I am a translated visitor from the City of Enoch sent to liven things up down here. So we are technically not in the same church (ours is called the Church of the Holy Fishcake) but it is the same gospel. I said that I didn't believe the spirit would prompt a Bishop to do something that would traumatize a child. Jacob grieved that he had to speak with boldness in front of those with tender sensibilities, but that is a far cry from traumatizing a child. Thus the inaccurate comparison.
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 A testimony of the restoration as the church is, or a testimony of the restoration of the church as you would like it to be? A testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
Calm Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 If people do not want their young person alone with the bishop during a personal worthiness interview I suppose that they believe that the bishop may be a pervert. What other conclusion can one draw?It is called prevention....Do you have kids? If so, do you not set up protections based on probabilities and not just certainties? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 That's precisely the problem. It's not really "that easy" for someone who wants to stay actively engaged in the church."Someone who wants to stay actively engaged in the Church" -- or who wants to become so engaged in the first place -- sooner or later will have to become accustomed to something that pervades the attitudes of the faithful. It is what Richard L. Bushman has called "the routinization of charisma." Charisma is defined in a theological sense as a divinely directed gift, grace or talent, such as prophecy. From my news report of Bushman's address when he explained this concept: "How can we account for the success of this lay-led Church, which seems to run against all expectations?" Brother Bushman asked. He said that it's genius can be largely explained in the fact that the expectation of divine revelation has been built into the very administrative structure and offices of the Church, an expectation attributable to the Prophet himself."Latter-day Saints know in their bones that only leadership based on righteousness and spirituality will work," Brother Bushman said, every new office holder knows it, and that, in itself, provides a check on the abuse of power within the Church. This trust that faithful Latter-day Saints as a matter of course have in their leaders assures them that in doing such things as conducting worthiness interviews, a bishop or a stake president will not abuse power. The occasional exception is so rare that, as a practical matter, it is not worth letting oneself be paralyzed by the fear of it occurring. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) It is called prevention....Do you have kids? If so, do you not set up protections based on probabilities and not just certainties?Does a bishop abusing his office in worthiness interviews even rise to the level of a probability? I don't see that it does. (See my post above about the routinization of charisma.) I return to my prior comparison to the relationship a family has with a pediatrician. As a routine matter, we trust the pediatrician to be competent and ethical, or we don't engage his services in the first place. I believe faithful Church members similarly regard priesthood leaders. Edited May 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Senator Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 ....the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Which is what?
The Nehor Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I said that I didn't believe the spirit would prompt a Bishop to do something that would traumatize a child. Jacob grieved that he had to speak with boldness in front of those with tender sensibilities, but that is a far cry from traumatizing a child. Thus the inaccurate comparison.He talked about metaphorically piercing them with knives and causing deep wounds. I am pretty sure that implies trauma.
Calm Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 That's precisely the problem. It's not really "that easy" for someone who wants to stay actively engaged in the church.We have for our daughter, it was no problem. We just said no interviews at all. The bishop gets her anxiety prevents it. 1
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 "Someone who wants to stay actively engaged in the Church" -- or who wants to become so engaged in the first place -- sooner or later will have to become accustomed to something that pervades the attitudes of the faithful. It is what Richard L. Bushman has called "the routinization of charisma." Charisma is defined in a theological sense as a divinely directed gift, grace or talent, such as prophecy. From my news report of Bushman's address when he explained this concept: This trust that faithful Latter-day Saints as a matter of course have in their leaders assures them that in doing such things as conducting worthiness interviews, a bishop or a stake president will not abuse power. The occasional exception is so rare that, as a practical matter, it is not worth letting oneself be paralyzed by the fear of it occurring. That seems to be a corollary to Section 121:41-44. Unfortunately, we also have to accept the possibility described in verse 39. And while I agree that only leadership based on righteousness and spirituality will work. I don't think that means we don't use any caution or discernment. And when it comes to my children, if I have reason to believe that a bishop may ask them inappropriate questions, I would speak with him prior to an interview. And speak with my child afterward (obviously).
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Which is what? A lot of things but it is not a belief in the infallibility of priesthood leaders.
Senator Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 We have for our daughter, it was no problem. We just said no interviews at all. The bishop gets her anxiety prevents it. May I ask, is she then prevented from such participation, such as temple attendance for baptisms? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 That seems to be a corollary to Section 121:41-44. Unfortunately, we also have to accept the possibility described in verse 39. And while I agree that only leadership based on righteousness and spirituality will work. I don't think that means we don't use any caution or discernment. And when it comes to my children, if I have reason to believe that a bishop may ask them inappropriate questions, I would speak with him prior to an interview. And speak with my child afterward (obviously).I don't see a problem with that. But I have to think it would be rare that you would even have reason to believe such a thing.
Calm Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Does a bishop abusing his office in worthiness interviews even rise to the level of a probability? I don't see that it does. (See my post above about the routinization of charisma.) I return to my prior comparison to the relationship a family has with a pediatrician. As a routine matter, we trust the pediatrician to be competent and ethical, or we don't engage his services in the first place. I believe faithful Church members similarly regard priesthood leaders.I try to check out my doctors ahead of time and never commit to one until I see them in operation. I have wasted too much time and money on doctors who not only do me no good, but make things worse because they wouldn't take the time to prepare and educate themselves....so it became necessary that I do so enough to be able to evaluate the competency of each doctor.Perhaps it is having family members that have been abused, perhaps it is exposure to clinical psychology in my youth which supplied me with information about how easily humans can slip into unhealthy situations, but I approach all interactions of children with adults with caution. I don't assume the worse, but I prepare for it in hopes of preventing it. I have the same attitude towards others sinning as I have towards myself...stay away from the edge as far as possible, walk as close to the safe zone as one can get instead (within reason).
Calm Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 May I ask, is she then prevented from such participation, such as temple attendance for baptisms?Not prevented, no..but she has never taken the opportunity, so yes in that sense if one wants to do temple work, it will require an interview, but given I grew up when single women weren't allowed temple recommends (outside of baptisms) and only attended baptisms once myself and that was in college, I see it as being possible to be fully active in church without that aspect.
Recommended Posts