The Spirit Of Discernment

[SJR3t2]

On ‎2018‎-‎04‎-‎26 at 2:38 PM, kllindley said:

Love and blessings to you. I trust in Christ to heal and succor all who suffer  I believe in a Good who knows but the end from the beginning, who can brring beauty for ashes and gold from dross. 

If one knows that a policy or action is likely to lead to an undesired result, but does it anyways is negligent on his part? There is a story in the OT, I'll find it if you want but you'll have to give me some time, but when a friend was during a somewhat dangerous chore, and he didn't check his tools where in good condition, and his friend died because of this. He had no bad intent, but he was still to some degree was responsible for what happen, and the law banded him from the city, partly to keep him safe from retribution but partly for being negligent.

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sorry....I can't tell what you're asking here (being sincere and maybe you can reword it and I'll answer).

Seeing that this thread is about the gift of discernment, and you were saying Bishop’s call was a big mistake, I’m take your comments to mean that the gift of discernment wasn’t at play in considering and issuing his calling(s), and that his commission was a function the fallibility of those who called him.

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, of course I know what "fallibility among the leadership" means.  I was referring to your usage of "less fallibility".  I'm not sure how a person can be more or less fallible....they're just fallible, IMO.  So, I don't really agree with your reasoning there (that follows the above).

i.e. “degrees of fallibility” within the fallibility spectrum (as opposed to either/or; degrees of infallibility are also conceivable, depending on the sphere of operation --- definitely another topic). Would a leader with this gift be less fallible vis-à-vis Bishop’s call, and therefore not call him, all else being equal?

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

From what I've read about this, there was good reason to believe he'd already done some things that should have kept him from being worthy and trustworthy of serving in a position over so many youth.  So, it wasn't just that he changed and suddenly started doing "evil things" after he was put in the position of president of the MTC.

Those are my impressions and feelings here, which have led me to form the beliefs I have regarding the wisdom and inspiration involved in issuing Bishop that calling.  Bottom line for me is that leaders make mistakes and this was one time when that happened.   I'm not sure why you argue that you agree leaders are fallible, but then can't see that this was possibly a mistake.

Yes, let’s say Bishop was doing evil things all along and yet was called because his leader lacked the gift of discernment or any other gift or reason associated with his fallibility, or because of anything we don’t know from the Lord’s point of view. Because of all the variables, I’m not one to assess the calling as mistaken and a fallacy in characterizing his call as attributable to the fallibility of the leaders and/or their lack of the gift of discernment.

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

I think most would recognize the local leaders are learning and doing the best they can. In my mind and I would guess many others also the problem comes into play when it's the pres, his counselors, and the quorum of 12 seems to not be using this gift much if at all.

But you only see the few times when in your opinion it fails.  I believe they use the gift on a daily basis and it works form them a lot more than it doesn't. The successes don't get made known as much. 

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

If one knows that a policy or action is likely to lead to an undesired result, but does it anyways is negligent on his part? There is a story in the OT, I'll find it if you want but you'll have to give me some time, but when a friend was during a somewhat dangerous chore, and he didn't check his tools where in good condition, and his friend died because of this. He had no bad intent, but he was still to some degree was responsible for what happen, and the law banded him from the city, partly to keep him safe from retribution but partly for being negligent.

Are you suggesting that a threshold number of leaders along the way were negligent in cultivating the gift of discernment, even in a checks-and-balance sense, to have not prevented the evils connected to Bishop?

Edited April 27, 2018 by CV75

[SJR3t2]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But you only see the few times when in your opinion it fails.  I believe they use the gift on a daily basis and it works form them a lot more than it doesn't. The successes don't get made known as much. 

I see what you are saying, but I disagree. Depending on how you want to look at things there are a multitude of examples. It's hard to say the percentage of it either way because guess what the LDS church does not share that data.

[SJR3t2]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Are you suggesting that a threshold number of leaders along the way were negligent in cultivating the gift of discernment, even in a checks-and-balance sense, to have not prevented the evils connected to Bishop?

I'm suggesting that various policies have not and don't work, for one interviewing young children without parents permission and asking sexual questions ect.

I think the local leaders in general are doing the best they know how within the bounds the church sets for them. I feel it's the general authorities that need to be better, if nothing else fixing the policies, and don't take so long to do it. And say it was a man policy and don't have the membership think it came from God. Just be forthright about where things are coming from and no more guessing game is this from man or God.

Edited April 27, 2018 by SJR3t2

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Seeing that this thread is about the gift of discernment, and you were saying Bishop’s call was a big mistake, I’m take your comments to mean that the gift of discernment wasn’t at play in considering and issuing his calling(s), and that his commission was a function the fallibility of those who called him.

I don't believe that the leaders lack a gift of discernment.....or just plain lack discernment.  Even with discernment, there is a human element that enters in and that's what makes a leader (or anyone) fallible, IMO.  The result is that mistakes are made.  As I've stated numerous times, I believe that is what took place with the decision to put Joseph Bishop in a position where the result was tragic.  I do not believe it was intentional, of course....but still a mistake.

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Would a leader with this gift be less fallible vis-à-vis Bishop’s call, and therefore not call him, all else being equal?

I have no idea.  You're talking pretty much in abstracts now, IMO.  I'd imagine the decision to call Bishop involved more than just one of our leaders.

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, let’s say Bishop was doing evil things all along and yet was called because his leader lacked the gift of discernment or any other gift or reason associated with his fallibility, or because of anything we don’t know from the Lord’s point of view. Because of all the variables, I’m not one to assess the calling as mistaken and a fallacy in characterizing his call as attributable to the fallibility of the leaders and/or their lack of the gift of discernment.

Well, I believe a person (or leader) can have discernment and still make mistakes.  I've never stated that the leaders had a complete lack of discernment.  I believe that the leaders have the ability to judge well, but are still human and fallible....which means that there will still be mistakes made.

Or do you believe having discernment is fail proof?  If one has discernment, they won't make mistakes?

Edited April 27, 2018 by ALarson

[kllindley]

40 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

If one knows that a policy or action is likely to lead to an undesired result, but does it anyways is negligent on his part? There is a story in the OT, I'll find it if you want but you'll have to give me some time, but when a friend was during a somewhat dangerous chore, and he didn't check his tools where in good condition, and his friend died because of this. He had no bad intent, but he was still to some degree was responsible for what happen, and the law banded him from the city, partly to keep him safe from retribution but partly for being negligent.

Yep. That's exactly my point.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SJR3t2 said:

If one knows that a policy or action is likely to lead to an undesired result, but does it anyways is negligent on his part? There is a story in the OT, I'll find it if you want but you'll have to give me some time, but when a friend was during a somewhat dangerous chore, and he didn't check his tools where in good condition, and his friend died because of this. He had no bad intent, but he was still to some degree was responsible for what happen, and the law banded him from the city, partly to keep him safe from retribution but partly for being negligent.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+19:5&version=KJV

[SJR3t2]

I'm still learning, is it okay to share links to sites that give some things for free and charge for others? The rules are a little murky to me on this.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

I'm still learning, is it okay to share links to sites that give some things for free and charge for others? The rules are a little murky to me on this.

Posting links without discussing what is in them is discouraged. (As in read or view this because it is interesting!)

Links are seen as usually supportive of conversations here, either as documentation or to get a conversation started.

If you are the owner of such a site, posting it once and discussing your purpose and such is probably okay, more than once...most likely seen as spam if you start multiple threads to self advertise, especially if you only participate in one or two posts, including the opening post.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[SJR3t2]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Posting links without discussing what is in them is discouraged. (As in read or view this because it is interesting!)

Links are seen as usually supportive of conversations here, either as documentation or to get a conversation started.

If you are the owner of such a site, posting it once and discussing your purpose and such is probably okay, more than once...most likely seen as spam if you start multiple threads to self advertise, especially if you only participate in one or two posts, including the opening post.

that makes sense.

So this is where I first learned of the concept. The do give 30 minutes a month free, I'm not sure if it will work with this video though. Here's hoping. It also shows a good parallel with Cain and Able.

https://www.alephbeta.org/course/lecture/shoftim-epilogue-1

Edited April 27, 2018 by SJR3t2

[Avatar4321]

Elder Bednar taught some principles to the gift of discernment when he spoke of the gift to be quick to observe. If I remember correctly he stated being quick to observe was a precursor to discernment

[CV75]

18 hours ago, SJR3t2 said:

I'm suggesting that various policies have not and don't work, for one interviewing young children without parents permission and asking sexual questions ect.

I think the local leaders in general are doing the best they know how within the bounds the church sets for them. I feel it's the general authorities that need to be better, if nothing else fixing the policies, and don't take so long to do it. And say it was a man policy and don't have the membership think it came from God. Just be forthright about where things are coming from and no more guessing game is this from man or God.

Except there is no policy requiring the interview of young children without parents’ permission and asking sexual questions. To characterize the interview policies in this fashion undermines a good faith discussion about them. Your second paragraph undermines it even more.

So in lieu of a conversation, I offer a good article about how leaders are to use discernment, and even discretion, in connection with using the policies in their callings:  https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng

[CV75]

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe that the leaders lack a gift of discernment.....or just plain lack discernment.  Even with discernment, there is a human element that enters in and that's what makes a leader (or anyone) fallible, IMO.  The result is that mistakes are made.  As I've stated numerous times, I believe that is what took place with the decision to put Joseph Bishop in a position where the result was tragic.  I do not believe it was intentional, of course....but still a mistake.

I have no idea.  You're talking pretty much in abstracts now, IMO.  I'd imagine the decision to call Bishop involved more than just one of our leaders.

Well, I believe a person (or leader) can have discernment and still make mistakes.  I've never stated that the leaders had a complete lack of discernment.  I believe that the leaders have the ability to judge well, but are still human and fallible....which means that there will still be mistakes made.

Or do you believe having discernment is fail proof?  If one has discernment, they won't make mistakes?

A deceiver intentionally misguides others to do the wrong thing, but a mistake refers to the action or judgement of someone who knows better and is not deceived, yet unintentionally misapplies what he knows. Thus fallibility and vulnerability to deception to me are two different things.

So I wouldn’t characterize the call of Joseph Bishop as a mistake merely because he did bad things in his calling. The cause-and-effects of his calling are far more complicated than that. Assuming the reports are accurate, a good deal of deception was going on, and to me deception does not constitute a mistake or establish fallibility (the tendency to make mistakes or to be wrong) on the part of the deceived, in this instance the priesthood authorities involved with him over many years. And it was not necessarily negligence on their part to lack knowledge or discernment of hidden information, or the gift of discernment for that matter. As a root-cause analysis is conducted in connection with seeking the justice, we can possibly find out what led to his appointment.

So my take is that if one has discernment on a subject, he will not be deceived on that that subject, but it is not a mistake to lack discernment on a particular subject. Especially in reference to the spiritual gift of discernment, only God “worketh all in all” no matter how much one may seek spiritual gifts. And note that you can still make a mistake having full knowledge on a subjec! Both are growth opportunities.

[JulieM]

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe that the leaders lack a gift of discernment.....or just plain lack discernment.  Even with discernment, there is a human element that enters in and that's what makes a leader (or anyone) fallible, IMO.  The result is that mistakes are made.  As I've stated numerous times, I believe that is what took place with the decision to put Joseph Bishop in a position where the result was tragic.  I do not believe it was intentional, of course....but still a mistake.

.....

Well, I believe a person (or leader) can have discernment and still make mistakes.  I've never stated that the leaders had a complete lack of discernment.  I believe that the leaders have the ability to judge well, but are still human and fallible....which means that there will still be mistakes made.

Exactly and well put.  I think you’ve expressed how many feel about this.  It’s unfair to accuse the brethren of completely having no discernment when they make decisions and issue calls.  I don’t believe discernment comes and goes on a whim either.  So, yes, they have discernment.  But, no, that doesn’t make them infallible.  

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Exactly and well put.  I think you’ve expressed how many feel about this.  It’s unfair to accuse the brethren of completely having no discernment when they make decisions and issue calls.  I don’t believe discernment comes and goes on a whim either.  So, yes, they have discernment.  But, no, that doesn’t make them infallible.  

I agree also.  There is something very human about discernment and our own instincts. 

[Stargazer]

This spirit of discernment is available to everyone called to positions of authority in the Church, I think, but it's not always activated, or so it seems to me.  Which is too bad.

I've heard of leaders who seem to have a great deal of discernment.  In fact, a post in another thread here indicated a stake leader who seemed to have blessed with a great deal of discernment.  That not all have it at all times would seem to be a function of who they are, and how they approach the things of the Spirit, as well as the will of the Lord.  And then there are those leaders who think they have discernment but do not, or worse, have anti-discernment.  

I have experienced this discernment thing.  It's very interesting.  Just for one example, when recently the Melchizedek Priesthood was re-organized, I knew that I was going to be called into our ward's presidency, and was very sure of who else would be called into it.  It wasn't wishful thinking -- I didn't actually want to be called into the EQ Presidency.  I just knew it was coming, and knew it was of the Lord.  

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

This spirit of discernment is available to everyone called to positions of authority in the Church, I think, but it's not always activated, or so it seems to me.  Which is too bad.

I've heard of leaders who seem to have a great deal of discernment.  In fact, a post in another thread here indicated a stake leader who seemed to have blessed with a great deal of discernment.  That not all have it at all times would seem to be a function of who they are, and how they approach the things of the Spirit, as well as the will of the Lord.  And then there are those leaders who think they have discernment but do not, or worse, have anti-discernment.  

I have experienced this discernment thing.  It's very interesting.  Just for one example, when recently the Melchizedek Priesthood was re-organized, I knew that I was going to be called into our ward's presidency, and was very sure of who else would be called into it.  It wasn't wishful thinking -- I didn't actually want to be called into the EQ Presidency.  I just knew it was coming, and knew it was of the Lord.  

I like your post.I like you!!  In my own mind though..I don't think the spirit of discernment is just for those in authority.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I like your post.I like you!!  In my own mind though..I don't think the spirit of discernment is just for those in authority.

Thanks!  And well, no, of course it isn't just for them!   I do think that leaders really really need it, and so my emphasis was on that.