(Now Former) Bishop in Draper Charged with Sex Offenses

[changed]

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think you are rusty on theology, but I suggest that you have an unrealistic understanding of God and humans. Nowhere in scripture has it been taught that he calls perfect men; in fact, quite the opposite. He calls weak instruments and will make them strong IF they are willing to follow him.  I have never met a perfect human and I have sat in within feet of apostles and prophets in the temple - know that they are human and willing to serve God. 

You might want to spend a lot of time with the Old Testament. I know of no other scripture better suited to aid humans to understand the frailties of leaders and God's willingness to use them and call them to repentance. 

On the other hand, if you want a construct which allows you to not believe in God - that is another path. You just realize it is your choice and it has nothing to do with God. 

 

I agree - everyone can consider the NT as well -

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Yes, we do in the same manner that Judas was called of God. Now, what is your point really rather than snide comments?

 

Not just Judas... all the apostles were a mess.  They could not heal people, did not understand most of what was going on, could not walk on water, could not even stay awake when Jesus needed them - it was an apostle who betrayed Jesus with a kiss... so the apostles then and now are a mess... (blacks and the priesthood, adultery, unable to protect children etc. etc.)

 

So... what is the point of even having leaders?  

 

How I interpret it - part of our religious journey happens within a community, but the larger part of our journey happens - not in a community - not by "trusting the arms of flesh" - but as an individual.  Individual testimony, no borrowed light, no relying on the arms of flesh...

The lazy, easy way, is to just rely on the arms of flesh, just "follow the leader" without thinking for yourself or taking responsibility for yourself - just agree with the leaders.... 

the harder road is thinking for yourself, having the courage to stand up and disagree with things that go against your conscience (like excluding not just LGBT - but the innocent children of LGBT etc.)

I no longer hold a TR because I refuse to rely on or follow any arms of flesh... 

Edited December 15, 2018 by changed

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

God puts children in harm's way every day.  Just coming down the birth canal there's a bit of a crap shoot whether the child is going to be breathing or not at the end.  The odds are good, most of the time, but...

When you strap your child into a car seat and head out onto the road, you are deliberately running the risk that some idiot has deliberately pumped himself full of alcohol at home or the bar, and may lose control of his vehicle, ramming your car head-on at 60 mph. Neither you nor your child is likely to survive in such a situation.  Did God do wrong to permit it?  Shouldn't you just stay home and not put your child at risk?

We're all going to die.  We're all going to sin.  The man or woman with the best of intentions can slip and make bad choices that damage others.  

Putting it in context here, God would not tell the bishop to call that man.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

This ignores all of history. It also ignores the concept of agency.

I'm saying for the second time, that God would not tell/inspire someone to choose a perp to be bishop. But understand that the person calling him to be bishop could have had the wave length wrong. 

[Stargazer]

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Putting it in context here, God would not tell the bishop to call that man.

I don't know about that.  I believe that a man might be called to a calling against the Lord's will, because the bishop does not listen to the Spirit.  But I also believe that the Lord could tell the bishop to call someone whom the Lord knew would be as a wolf.  

We must be tested, and God knows some of us will fail and do evil. Yet he allows the test, regardless.  Because the test must happen.  And you must make a choice, too, when the evil is manifest.   

The problem here is that this life is meant to be hard.  It is not meant to be a cake walk.  God tells us clearly that it is his work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man -- immortality is the resurrection, and eternal life is God raising as many of us as he can to be joint-heirs with Christ, to inherit all that the Father hath.  We must be tested as to whether we will do right when the choice between right and wrong is presented to us, and we must do it freely, because He must weed out those who will choose evil.  Hence there will be wolves, and they will ravage the flock, and God will not prevent them from doing so.  Acts 20:29: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."  Paul knew it and God knew it.  And yet God did not prevent it.  It had to be, because men are free to choose, and must be free to choose.

 

 

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm saying for the second time, that God would not tell/inspire someone to choose a perp to be bishop. But understand that the person calling him to be bishop could have had the wave length wrong. 

It's already been said, but I will repeat it here.  Jesus chose Judas, whom he KNEW would betray him.  Even though Judas himself did not know it.  Was Jesus then uninspired?  

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

So, do you think Tacenda's wish of ending Bishop/Youth interviews will be or should be granted?  I don't think it will be any time soon, if ever.

I don't mind a youth who would like some guidance or even to confess some kind of sin and speak to the bishop. I don't like the masturbation or sexual questioning.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

While I can appreciate the sentiment on this, I don't know that the reasoning is sound.  If one believes in the God of the Bible, then He regularly put children in harm's way.  For example, Saul was commanded to kill the all of the Amalekites, including the children and infants.  Joshua was commanded to kill all of the inhabitants of the Promised Land.  By itself, the scriptures do not appear to support a blanket assumption of protection afforded to children.

That being said, the frequency with which these situations occur casts in to serious doubt the narrative that God is actively involved in the calling of leadership (IMO).

In order for me to love a God, I cannot accept most of what is said in the Bible in this regard, which may or may not send me to hell.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

29,000 children under the age of 5 died today (and every day) of disease, neglect, starvation, war, etc.  God could have chosen to prevent each of those deaths, but stayed His hand.  

Similarly,the BofM relates the compelling story of a brutal mass murder of recent converts in front of two missionaries who had both the faith and the desire to prevent the murders, yet God bid them to stay their hands.

Agency is central to God’s plan and He rarely interferes with the consequences of our exercise of agency, even when it impacts the innocent, including children.

To those who wonder about the fairness of God’s actions, remember that children who die before reaching accountability inherit the Celestial Kingdom and, as for the rest of us, the scriptures teach that ALL will confess God’s judgments are just.  So whatever we may not now understand, we will ultimately both understand and agree is just.

I do agree God gave us our agency, but don't believe he intentionally hurts. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

In order for me to love a God, I cannot accept most of what is said in the Bible in this regard, which may or may not send me to hell.

I can't blame you for rejecting those things...just pointing out that the position you were stating doesn't reconcile with the traditional teachings of our faith background.

[changed]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't know about that.  I believe that a man might be called to a calling against the Lord's will, because the bishop does not listen to the Spirit.  But I also believe that the Lord could tell the bishop to call someone whom the Lord knew would be as a wolf.  

We must be tested, and God knows some of us will fail and do evil. Yet he allows the test, regardless.  Because the test must happen.  And you must make a choice, too, when the evil is manifest.   

The problem here is that this life is meant to be hard.  It is not meant to be a cake walk.  God tells us clearly that it is his work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man -- immortality is the resurrection, and eternal life is God raising as many of us as he can to be joint-heirs with Christ, to inherit all that the Father hath.  We must be tested as to whether we will do right when the choice between right and wrong is presented to us, and we must do it freely, because He must weed out those who will choose evil.  Hence there will be wolves, and they will ravage the flock, and God will not prevent them from doing so.  Acts 20:29: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."  Paul knew it and God knew it.  And yet God did not prevent it.  It had to be, because men are free to choose, and must be free to choose.

 

 

 

and - what is the "test" in this case? what is the correct answer for the student?

Does the student "pass" the test by remaining true to some man-made church, after that church's leaders molest their children?  or is the proper response to this kind of test - "it's time to leave" - put children before HP leaders, time to take responsibility for your own rather than continuing to rely on the arms of flesh - 

For me, I believe the correct response - the message being sent - was "it's time for you to take your individual journey now...", time to find your own beliefs, time to dispense with any middle man - to look at all of the people through all the world, in all the different imperfect religious groups, and ask "why is it set up like this?" - the answer perhaps - it is set up like this to force everyone to connect individually with God... we all have imperfect communities to take us part of the way, but at some point, we realize those communities will not take us where we really need to be.  

Those last steps?  scary as it might be, but those last steps are taken on your own.  

[changed]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's already been said, but I will repeat it here.  Jesus chose Judas, whom he KNEW would betray him.  Even though Judas himself did not know it.  Was Jesus then uninspired?  

 

 

Would you have followed Judas because he was an apostle?  Would you have helped betray Jesus because one of his apostles told you to?

Jesus may have called Judas, but we are not supposed to follow Judas.  

It is a great example - where we can know that even those who are apostles - even prophets - you do not always follow them.  Would you follow Jonah into the mouth of a whale?

In the end, follow what is good.  

It is up to each of us individually to follow what is good on our own.

It is not the church of John the baptist, not the church of Nelson - it is supposed to be the church of Jesus Christ - and I will not put anything any imperfect human being states above my own conscience.

We all have a conscience - the light of Christ - for a reason.  

Would you disagree with the black priesthood ban if you were living during that time period?  Would you disagree with prophets being adulterous if you lived during the time of polygamy?  Would have supported ill-equipped hand-cart companies trudging out into the snow to kill themselves - or would you have stayed behind (they were not being persecuted at that point) and listened to your own reasoned voice?  

Will you send your children and grandchildren in for recommend interviews on their own - a little girl alone with an old man to be educated about sex? or will you decide that is not for you... will you let a HP decide if you are worthy or not? or do you not need a TR to feel worthy - do you know it is between you and God in the end?

Will you give 10% of your income to an organization that is not transparent with their funds... or will you do a little more research, and donate to other causes?  With all the suffering in the world, where will your $ be best spent?

Will you look down on all the other religious organisations, and think God is not with them - think you are better than the rest of humanity?  ... 

Women's issues, LGBT issues, where do you stand - do you stand on your own two feet, or will you follow Judas because he is an apostle?  

WWJD?

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by changed

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

God would not put children in harms way, so definitely not an inspired calling.

What about all the parents who abuse children?  (Much greater number than bishops who have abused child) How do you explain that?  Why didn't God make them childless?

(been out most of the day with family, catching up, so ignore if asked already)

[FunOnlineMan]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

That is not a God that exists. God does not "put" children in harm's way - humans do. Wars have killed millions upon millions of children - was God responsible for their deaths? Of course not, wicked humans kill and abuse children. 

Tacenda, you know better. 

Why is that not a god that exists?

Wouldn’t god be responsible for who serves in his kingdom and where? That’s how this is different from your standard war, imo. Unless it’s one of those wars where god commanded the children be put to death. Those are special cases. 

[FunOnlineMan]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

What about all the parents who abuse children?  (Much greater number than bishops who have abused child) How do you explain that?  Why didn't God make them childless?

(been out most of the day with family, catching up, so ignore if asked already)

A similar comment was made in regards to church policies, but not god’s direct involvement. 

I personally would choose for god to see to it that anyone with child such tendencies would be still-born or mauled by wild dogs or whatever god could come up with in his omniscience to prevent monsters from harming children.

I have also been told that this would make this deity less of a god than the one who favors the agency of an abuser over the agency of a victim. 

So, I’m in the disbelief ward. Our socials aren’t as fun, but the drinks are usually a bit stiffer. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

What about all the parents who abuse children?  (Much greater number than bishops who have abused child) How do you explain that?  Why didn't God make them childless?

(been out most of the day with family, catching up, so ignore if asked already)

You're fine Calm. I am just narrowing it down to the idea that God would not communicate to a leader in the position of picking out a new bishop, specifically to someone that would harm. Now the parents having children is more something that God doesn't have a hand in IMO. It's the free agency thing again. 

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, changed said:

 

Would you have followed Judas because he was an apostle?  Would you have helped betray Jesus because one of his apostles told you to?

What does that have anything to do with anything?  And did anything I wrote imply any of what you just wrote?  

Judas was a faithful follower of Jesus, until he wasn't.  The 12 were sent out to do missionary work, and certainly there were many converts brought in by Judas.  Why would I betray Jesus just because one of his apostles did?

You make no sense whatsoever.

7 hours ago, changed said:

Jesus may have called Judas, but we are not supposed to follow Judas.  

Did I say we did?

7 hours ago, changed said:

It is a great example - where we can know that even those who are apostles - even prophets - you do not always follow them.  Would you follow Jonah into the mouth of a whale?

In the end, follow what is good.  

It is up to each of us individually to follow what is good on our own.

Each one of is ultimately responsible for our own decisions, for good or ill.  But if you had been Nephi would you have refused to kill Laban?

7 hours ago, changed said:

It is not the church of John the baptist, not the church of Nelson - it is supposed to be the church of Jesus Christ - and I will not put anything any imperfect human being states above my own conscience.

Assuming that your conscience isn't running contrary to the Spirit, that's a fine idea.  Even Jesus had people leave him because their consciences couldn't hack what he was saying at times.  Were they right to do so?

7 hours ago, changed said:

We all have a conscience - the light of Christ - for a reason.  

Yes, but some of us mistake the approval of the world for their conscience.

7 hours ago, changed said:

Would you disagree with the black priesthood ban if you were living during that time period? 

I have news for you.  I did live during that time period, and while I didn't understand why the ban was in place, and I was overjoyed when it was lifted, my testimony of the truth of the Church did not lead me to fight the Church or bad-mouth it.

7 hours ago, changed said:

Would you disagree with prophets being adulterous if you lived during the time of polygamy? 

Considering that many prophets throughout history lived the law of plural marriage, and the Lord did not hold them as sinners for it, I suspect that I should not either.

7 hours ago, changed said:

Would have supported ill-equipped hand-cart companies trudging out into the snow to kill themselves - or would you have stayed behind (they were not being persecuted at that point) and listened to your own reasoned voice?  

Will you send your children and grandchildren in for recommend interviews on their own - a little girl alone with an old man to be educated about sex? or will you decide that is not for you... will you let a HP decide if you are worthy or not? or do you not need a TR to feel worthy - do you know it is between you and God in the end?

Will you give 10% of your income to an organization that is not transparent with their funds... or will you do a little more research, and donate to other causes?  With all the suffering in the world, where will your $ be best spent?

Will you look down on all the other religious organisations, and think God is not with them - think you are better than the rest of humanity?  ... 

Women's issues, LGBT issues, where do you stand - do you stand on your own two feet, or will you follow Judas because he is an apostle?  

WWJD?

 

You clearly have your own church.  I wish you well with it.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, changed said:

 

and - what is the "test" in this case? what is the correct answer for the student?

Does the student "pass" the test by remaining true to some man-made church, after that church's leaders molest their children?  or is the proper response to this kind of test - "it's time to leave" - put children before HP leaders, time to take responsibility for your own rather than continuing to rely on the arms of flesh - 

For me, I believe the correct response - the message being sent - was "it's time for you to take your individual journey now...", time to find your own beliefs, time to dispense with any middle man - to look at all of the people through all the world, in all the different imperfect religious groups, and ask "why is it set up like this?" - the answer perhaps - it is set up like this to force everyone to connect individually with God... we all have imperfect communities to take us part of the way, but at some point, we realize those communities will not take us where we really need to be.  

Those last steps?  scary as it might be, but those last steps are taken on your own.  

As I said above, you clearly believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a man-made church.  I get what you're saying.  Again, best wishes on your journey.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Why is that not a god that exists?

Wouldn’t god be responsible for who serves in his kingdom and where? That’s how this is different from your standard war, imo. Unless it’s one of those wars where god commanded the children be put to death. Those are special cases. 

Fun, the god you are talking about is Satan - he would force everyone to do as HE pleases and free agency would not exist. The God of the universe is a God of exaltation for his children. The challenge is that his children must choose between righteousness or evil. 

I realize that people today are more ready to accept domination and slavery if in return they can have a world that they want. Stupid, shortsighted, but still I see it in the people's desires. 

[FunOnlineMan]

55 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Fun, the god you are talking about is Satan -

If Satan is the one that doesn’t deliberately place monsters in positions of trust with children, then I guess he’s my guy. 

55 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

he would force everyone to do as HE pleases and free agency would not exist. The God of the universe is a God of exaltation for his children. The challenge is that his children must choose between righteousness or evil. 

It’s not always a challenge. I’ll give you a hypothetical: Tammy asks Connie for recommendations for a babysitter. Connie, believing Tammy’s children would learn and grow best through adversity, recommends a child molester. Was that righteous of Connie or evil?

55 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I realize that people today are more ready to accept domination and slavery if in return they can have a world that they want. Stupid, shortsighted, but still I see it in the people's desires. 

What is it about a world without child molestaion that for you makes it a place of domination and slavery?

And why is child molestation a necessary result of free agency? Can’t there be agency and still not adults that need to prey on children? If it throws the universe off balance then add some other sin in its place or something.

[Storm Rider]

39 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

If Satan is the one that doesn’t deliberately place monsters in positions of trust with children, then I guess he’s my guy. 

It’s not always a challenge. I’ll give you a hypothetical: Tammy asks Connie for recommendations for a babysitter. Connie, believing Tammy’s children would learn and grow best through adversity, recommends a child molester. Was that righteous of Connie or evil?

What is it about a world without child molestaion that for you makes it a place of domination and slavery?

And why is child molestation a necessary result of free agency? Can’t there be agency and still not adults that need to prey on children? If it throws the universe off balance then add some other sin in its place or something.

I think we are done. Cheers

[CA Steve]

It is interesting to see how this conversation about theodicy is one where God is defended for not interceding because it would limit our agency. Well for those that argue  this point, how then is God still preserving our agency when he does intercede? When we place names on the temple rolls, and God answers those prayers, isn't He then limiting the agency for those people whom He blessed? If not, then why couldn't it have been done in the case where He didn't interceerd?

 

The argument about agency is a double edged sword.

Edited December 15, 2018 by CA Steve

[strappinglad]

It should be remembered that " leaning on the arm of the flesh " also refers to leaning on our own arm as superior to all others. Tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine comes to mind.

[Avatar4321]

God calls bishops to grow our faith.

Sometimes they grow it through inspiration and exhortation. But sometimes they grow it through trial

Edited December 15, 2018 by Avatar4321

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

God calls bishops to grow our faith.

Sometimes they grow it through inspiration and exhortation. But sometimes they grow it through trial

Are you suggesting that these abused children and their families were intentionally subjected to a "trial" by God?  Do you even think about the implications of these vacuous platitudes you throw around?

Edited December 16, 2018 by ttribe

[strappinglad]

Luke 17 and Matt 18 say that offences must inevitably come but woe unto the one by which they come. Now you can debate WHY offences must come, philosophers do so and have for centuries, but it seems that , in the end, the punishment goes to the offender.