No mistakes made in callings

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Per lds.org under Gospel Topics, God the Father:

"God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things."

https://www.lds.org/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng

Per the Bible dictionary under "God":

"...God created all things and is the ruler of the universe, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent..."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/god

They really should take such nonsensical concepts out of the study guides.

[SmileyMcGee]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As Mark Bukowski has said on this board:

In other words, since there is no word in the Hebrew scriptures for omnipotent or omniscient, we are dealing with Greek theological constructs which mislead us into an unnecessary problem of theodicy, which does not comport with us being coeternal with God, and having free will.  There is no problem of evil, if God is not solely responsible for everything.  The Calvinist is locked into his dilemma due to his false preconceptions of an absolute and sovereign God.

Indeed, those BofM references, manuals, and leaders represent nothing more than poetic and symbolic language (translation English) speaking about the relative greatness of God, which means hyperbolic phrasing (exaggeration for effect).  Otherwise, since LDS theology posits possible apotheosis for humans, the notions of omniscience and omnipotence become self-contradictory and paradoxical.

Well-stated and eloquently put. To be honest Robert, if your brand of Mormonism or Mark's was consciously and deliberately preached and accepted by the general membership and leadership of the Church, it would make sundays much more tolerable. But as much as I want to I honestly don't see it. 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As Mark Bukowski has said on this board:

In other words, since there is no word in the Hebrew scriptures for omnipotent or omniscient, we are dealing with Greek theological constructs which mislead us into an unnecessary problem of theodicy, which does not comport with us being coeternal with God, and having free will.  There is no problem of evil, if God is not solely responsible for everything.  The Calvinist is locked into his dilemma due to his false preconceptions of an absolute and sovereign God.

Indeed, those BofM references, manuals, and leaders represent nothing more than poetic and symbolic language (translation English) speaking about the relative greatness of God, which means hyperbolic phrasing (exaggeration for effect).  Otherwise, since LDS theology posits possible apotheosis for humans, the notions of omniscience and omnipotence become self-contradictory and paradoxical.

Great points.

Side note: isn't the idea of an immortal soul also a Greek theological construct?

[Gray]

6 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Well-stated and eloquently put. To be honest Robert, if your brand of Mormonism or Mark's was consciously and deliberately preached and accepted by the general membership and leadership of the Church, it would make Sundays much more tolerable. But as much as I want to I honestly don't see it. 

The problem is that mainstream Christianity has been leaking into Mormonism for many decades now, and it often clashes with foundational Mormon theology.

[Gray]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So the assumption of the thread is that priesthood leaders are fallible and make mistakes, right? yet Elder Eyring claims infallibility.

That contradicts the basic assumption, therefore ignore the rest and go have lunch

BUT

There is more to this.

On the other hand, I agree with Elder Eyring in that it is up to each of us seek a testimony of our calling, and sacrifice to make the best of it we can.  All of life is a test on how well we handle things when they do not go well AND assume that the calling came from the Lord

For all we know that "terrible calling" was given precisely to test us.  For all we know the sinful stake president may be encouraged by such a calling to change his ways.

The point is that we are to BELIEVE in the callings we are given and that assumption itself will bring us closer to Christ for obedience alone if nothing else.

So let's BELIEVE Elder Eyring and assume he is right and see what we have to learn by doing so instead of making the self-contradictory observation that though leaders make mistakes, Elder E is claiming infallibility.

In other words, this whole life is about learning from mistakes, those we make and those others make.

We call this "The Gospel of Jesus Christ" and the "Plan of Happiness".   Remember Adam and Eve and the fortunate fall?

So what's the big deal?

 

This would make God partially responsible for the terrible actions done by those given callings, though, right? If God knowingly calls a child molester to be a primary teacher or a bishop (and don't think that this hasn't happened), God becomes responsible (jointly) for the inevitable tragedy that results. And instead of a growth experience, children are damaged for life.

No, much simpler to go with the obvious conclusion - inspiration comes through fallible human vessels, and some callings are a mistake.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

 I would agree with this, but It seems then that President Eyring should have said "and so makes no mistakes in His calls when leaders are listening"

That's a much better formulation.

 

[Avatar4321]

Some people called builds our faith. Other people try our faith

[mnn727]

The Lord makes no mistakes in His calls -- men however have been known to make big mistakes.

I was clerk to one Bishop that ran the ward like he ran his business, not sure he prayed about callings ever, I certainly never saw evidence of it.

I was Exec Sec to another Bishop that prayed for weeks over some callings. 

Which one had the Lords help?

 

[CV75]

16 hours ago, JAHS said:

President Eyring made this rather bold statement in General Conference:

"For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls."

He goes on to explain a little what he meant"

"That may bring a smile or a shake of the head to some in this audience—both those who think their own call to serve might have been a mistake as well as those who picture some they know who seem poorly suited to their place in the Lord’s kingdom. My counsel to both groups is to delay such judgments until you can better see what the Lord sees. The judgment you need to make, instead, is that you have the capacity to receive revelation and to act on it fearlessly."  The Lord Leads His Church

I have known a couple Bishops and even a Stake president who it seems should never have been called to such a position, because of what sins they were hiding and things they did while they were serving as a Bishop or Stake President. There is one in the news right now as an example.  I know no one is perfect as President Eyring said, but how do you justify to someone who was hurt by such a person, that President Eyring is right when he says  mistakes are not made in who is called to a certain position of trust and leadership? 

As horrible as it seems to us, and to use it as an extreme example, it teaches the same lessons learned by those involved in Alma 14:10-11. We still believe in God, including what He calls upon us to do, or suffer or enjoy, or believe.

[HappyJackWagon]

The claim of perfect callings is rubbish.

Even IF Jesus personally directed every minute detail of church leadership including the issue and release of every calling, for this to be true we would need to believe that not only is Jesus perfect, but so is every called leader. No one believes that every leader perfectly hears every prompting or responds to it exactly as God would want. Leaders are not perfect. That means they will make mistakes, including in who they call.

Claiming perfection in callings is not only a simplistic approach to faith, but it's also harmful because believing in perfection of calls will cause many of us to accept behavior and teachings from leaders that we shouldn't accept. If we believe that 1 horrible leader was called as a test for us, then we have a poor view of who God is. I don't believe in a trickster God and I don't believe in a jerk God. 

If we accept that God works with fallible humans then we MUST accept that those fallible humans will make mistakes. Any other claim is simply unsustainable.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The claim of perfect callings is rubbish.

Even IF Jesus personally directed every minute detail of church leadership including the issue and release of every calling, for this to be true we would need to believe that not only is Jesus perfect, but so is every called leader. No one believes that every leader perfectly hears every prompting or responds to it exactly as God would want. Leaders are not perfect. That means they will make mistakes, including in who they call.

Claiming perfection in callings is not only a simplistic approach to faith, but it's also harmful because believing in perfection of calls will cause many of us to accept behavior and teachings from leaders that we shouldn't accept. If we believe that 1 horrible leader was called as a test for us, then we have a poor view of who God is. I don't believe in a trickster God and I don't believe in a jerk God. 

If we accept that God works with fallible humans then we MUST accept that those fallible humans will make mistakes. Any other claim is simply unsustainable.

Still think every calling is inspired. God foresaw all the screw ups and compensated.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Still think every calling is inspired. God foresaw all the screw ups and compensated.

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5437671&itype=CMSID

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

That's a much better formulation.

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The claim of perfect callings is rubbish.

Even IF Jesus personally directed every minute detail of church leadership including the issue and release of every calling, for this to be true we would need to believe that not only is Jesus perfect, but so is every called leader. No one believes that every leader perfectly hears every prompting or responds to it exactly as God would want. Leaders are not perfect. That means they will make mistakes, including in who they call.

Claiming perfection in callings is not only a simplistic approach to faith, but it's also harmful because believing in perfection of calls will cause many of us to accept behavior and teachings from leaders that we shouldn't accept. If we believe that 1 horrible leader was called as a test for us, then we have a poor view of who God is. I don't believe in a trickster God and I don't believe in a jerk God. 

If we accept that God works with fallible humans then we MUST accept that those fallible humans will make mistakes. Any other claim is simply unsustainable.

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Still think every calling is inspired. God foresaw all the screw ups and compensated.

I don't think the issue is so much about fallibility and perfection but as The Nehor points out, atonement. As horrible as it seems to us, and to use it as an extreme example, Elder Eyring is referring to the same lessons learned by all of those involved in Alma 14:10-11. We still believe in God, including what He calls upon us to do, or suffer or enjoy, or to believe.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

*He* makes no mistakes in *his* calls, but sometimes we make mistakes in whom we call. Not every calling is inspired. 

Edited October 11, 2017 by DispensatorMysteriorum

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, DispensatorMysteriorum said:

*He* makes not mistakes in *his* calls, but sometimes we make mistakes in whom we call. Not every calling is inspired. 

it's interesting, a former Bishop of mine and an architect was called to be in the Stake Presidency 6 months prior to the Temple being announced here, when no one knew anything about it. So, obviously as a architect he knows all that construction, permits, soil conditions, presentations flubbdubbery. But............on the other hand I had a bishop years ago who is a delusional sociopath

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't think the issue is so much about fallibility and perfection but as The Nehor points out, atonement. As horrible as it seems to us, and to use it as an extreme example, Elder Eyring is referring to the same lessons learned by all of those involved in Alma 14:10-11. We still believe in God, including what He calls upon us to do, or suffer or enjoy, or to believe.

Deliberately causing suffering so it can be atoned for later? That doesn't sound right to me. Does God deliberately manipulate events so that children who would otherwise be safe are molested? And it's okay because the suffering will be erased in the next life?

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5437671&itype=CMSID

Horrible but foreseen.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Deliberately causing suffering so it can be atoned for later? That doesn't sound right to me. Does God deliberately manipulate events so that children who would otherwise be safe are molested? And it's okay because the suffering will be erased in the next life?

It is not okay. It takes a suffering and murdered God to heal. God allows people to sin so the judgement against them will be just unless they repent.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Deliberately causing suffering so it can be atoned for later? That doesn't sound right to me. Does God deliberately manipulate events so that children who would otherwise be safe are molested? And it's okay because the suffering will be erased in the next life?

I see Alma 14 as answering these questions quite clearly. God does not deliberately cause suffering (He does not call perpetrators so they can cause suffering; nor does He manipulate events so they can inflict suffering; the Atonement of Christ doesn't make His own suffering or any atoned-for suffering "okay" -- I do not know what "okay" means in this context -- but it does offer the intended eternal blessings on the terms provided).

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not okay. It takes a suffering and murdered God to heal. God allows people to sin so the judgement against them will be just unless they repent.

So God is setting up people in callings to fail so they can be judged. This kind of God isn't worthy of worship.

How do you account for the perfection of humans in issuing calls to others. Do you feel that leaders perfectly understand the will of God in every case?

How about the convicted child molester called to work in the nursery? Did God inspire the bishop to issue that call so that others would have the opportunity to oppose it?

Again, the claim of perfection in issuing callings is laughable. Humans must be perfect in recognizing and instituting the will of God AND many of these callings must be tests for the people. This trickster God is a real jerk.

OR one could recognize how impossible it is to have perfection in issuing callings, therefore recognizing the faults and limitations of men, instead of blaming the errors on God as if it's some sort of divine game with which God is amused.

 

[rockpond]

18 hours ago, JAHS said:

President Eyring made this rather bold statement in General Conference:

"For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls."

He goes on to explain a little what he meant"

"That may bring a smile or a shake of the head to some in this audience—both those who think their own call to serve might have been a mistake as well as those who picture some they know who seem poorly suited to their place in the Lord’s kingdom. My counsel to both groups is to delay such judgments until you can better see what the Lord sees. The judgment you need to make, instead, is that you have the capacity to receive revelation and to act on it fearlessly."  The Lord Leads His Church

I have known a couple Bishops and even a Stake president who it seems should never have been called to such a position, because of what sins they were hiding and things they did while they were serving as a Bishop or Stake President. There is one in the news right now as an example.  I know no one is perfect as President Eyring said, but how do you justify to someone who was hurt by such a person, that President Eyring is right when he says  mistakes are not made in who is called to a certain position of trust and leadership? 

Technically President Eyring is correct in that the Lord doesn't make mistakes but the men making decisions and extending calls certainly do (and I obviously include myself in that).

 

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I see Alma 14 as answering these questions quite clearly. God does not deliberately cause suffering (He does not call perpetrators so they can cause suffering; nor does He manipulate events so they can inflict suffering; the Atonement of Christ doesn't make His own suffering or any atoned-for suffering "okay" -- I do not know what "okay" means in this context -- but it does offer the intended eternal blessings on the terms provided).

Giving a child molester to a calling that interacts with children is like putting a fox in a hen house. The end result is inevitable. So if God isn't deliberately trying to get children molested, God cannot possibly be behind the calling of a child molester these kinds of callings - therefore some callings are a mistake.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

SmileyMcGee is wrong, and you are on the right track here, hope.  Not that his view is not held by a lot of people who fail to think the problem through systematically.  They think that foresight effectively gives God Calvinistic sovereignty, forgetting about the undistributed middle term in their unstated syllogism.  For, as Rabbi Akiba states in Tractate Abot 3:15 in the Talmud, "All is foreseen, and free will is given."

Thanks, nice to know we can agree on some things.  

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not okay. It takes a suffering and murdered God to heal. God allows people to sin so the judgement against them will be just unless they repent.

Yes, but there's a difference between allowing people to sin and deliberately putting events into motion that directly cause harm. Therefore some callings are in error.

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Horrible but foreseen.

Then the calling must have been a mistake.