Qualification for bishop

[LoudmouthMormon]

20 hours ago, Anijen said:

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

However, evidently, His Church will:

• Bishop, not likely
• Temple Worker, nope
• Faculty at a Church School, ug, not you
• CES position, in your dreams

Spoken like someone who has never thought about the impact it might have on an abuse victim to walk into a church three decades later and see their abuser presiding in sacrament meeting.

@Anijen, I believe this might be a good time for you to do a little reflecting about how calls to serve might actually involve someone besides the person called to serve.

Edited June 7, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

funnily enough our Stake RS Pres. is single and to put it midly, CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, anyways, we had a visiting General Authority last weekend and after she spoke he spoke and said in essence, "I don't know if you'll get married in this life but ah hopefully in the next" like it wasn't a guaranteed thing😐

I would love to go to your ward, and bring my popcorn! 

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I would love to go to your ward, and bring my popcorn! 

do it!!!!! hahahahahhaha! we have this lady who talks back to the speakers sometimes, it temporarily throws you off though-I think she thinks she's involved in the talk somehow🙄

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think there is an unhealthy emphasis on sexuality in our church culture today, and too much of an orientation towards purity as it relates to sexual behavior.  I don't see the bible as an instruction manual, there are plenty of things Paul or others said that we don't follow strictly in the church, nor should we.  

I like a recent analogy I heard that Richard Rohr uses for religion.  He compared religion to a tricycle with the front wheel being our experience, and the back two wheels being scriptures and tradition.  The front wheel (experience) steers our decision making and is informed by the back two wheels of tradition (in Mormonism this would include the church leaders) and scripture (which obviously would vary by interpretation).  I like the idea of all three components informing our religious journey.  As your analogy of the steering wheel suggests, it is ultimately your experience that guides you too a destination, often without any conscious effort on your part.  

Thanks for the video about Wittgenstein, very interesting and as before with the video on Kuhn, it was definitely easier for me to understand because of its simplified distillation.  

It sounded to me like he was saying that the reason religious experiences are unspeakable is because they essentially can't be clearly described using words, so we shouldn't even attempt to speak them into existence.  Is that your understanding about his perspective as well? 

I did find another point in the video interesting, the type of pragmatic approach to employing religious ideas that "work" for you.  I think this is sound advice and fits well with Alma 32 as we've discussed before.  Connecting this back to our other conversation on Kuhn's paradigms, I think the one question that arises is how can any person judge which religious paradigms are better than others? 

Well yes that has to be an individual decision based on Alma 32 , James 1, Moroni 10 et al which is essentially Pragmatism.  So here you are speaking about religious/ethical concerns

Quote

Should it be a democratic process, where a majority wins?  If that were the case, we might still have slavery or other forms of oppression and prejudice still alive today. 

And here suddenly you have switched to politics?  Or what ethics the whole world should have?  Not sure how that connects....

The fact is that I believe we all know those things are "wrong" and that is why political correctness works so well to confuse people because they define anything they like to be one of those great "evils" by playing with words.

It's ironic because as a Communist the words "correct philosophy" were prominent in my vocabulary learned at the feet of Angela Davis.  I can still hear the cadence and measured tones of how she spoke in 1969- in this video I was one of those wimpy white students who followed her. (Not literally- I was not at this event, but I took the same position on the steps at UCLA as was happening here).  She could drag out the word "Opression" to at least 5 seconds... 

https://youtu.be/eUizaL4_lfk

As Monty Python might have said "I got better".

Quote

Perhaps this wrestle to discern what paradigms work best is part of the meaning of life?  Or perhaps its just how we've evolved to interact.  Is it random, or is there some pattern in the noise?  Or could it be both?  Interesting to think about.  

Yes it is exactly the meaning of life described as the "test" in the plan of happiness.  And yes it is how we evolved to interact.  And yes there is pattern in the noise- the creation of worlds from matter unorganized-  for Divine Humanity as a parable, or as a literal reality for those who can see it that way.

But I love this video.  This was MY life at the time.

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And here suddenly you have switched to politics?  Or what ethics the whole world should have?  Not sure how that connects....

The fact is that I believe we all know those things are "wrong" and that is why political correctness works so well to confuse people because they define anything they like to be one of those great "evils" by playing with words.

It's ironic because as a Communist the words "correct philosophy" were prominent in my vocabulary learned at the feet of Angela Davis.  I can still hear the cadence and measured tones of how she spoke in 1969- in this video I was one of those wimpy white students who followed her. (Not literally- I was not at this event, but I took the same position on the steps at UCLA as was happening here).  She could drag out the word "Opression" to at least 5 seconds... 

https://youtu.be/eUizaL4_lfk

As Monty Python might have said "I got better".

Interesting history, I'm not that familiar with the Angela Davis episode, but I did read about it on wikipedia just to get a brief summary.  Reading between the lines here, it sounds like you might view following Ms. Davis as a mistake made earlier in life and that you've found a better path now?  Can you clarify what it is about her and the movement that was mistaken?  I'm genuinely curious, as I did read about the courtroom incident where 4 people were killed, and clearly that was a tragedy, but I wasn't alive and am not well versed on this period of history and I'm not in a position to place judgment on the philosophies espoused by Ms. Davis and their quality.  

My overall point was not to take this discussion political per se, it was to highlight what I see as a problem with the individual perspective of doing "what works" as that applies to religious paradigms.  Who is to judge what works?  The individual?  If thats the case deranged individuals throughout history have committed various acts that they believed were justified, but that broader society thought were egregious.  How is one to judge what works in this pragmatic paradigm, without introducing the idea that outside judgment from broader society is a component in the process?  

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes it is exactly the meaning of life described as the "test" in the plan of happiness.  And yes it is how we evolved to interact.  And yes there is pattern in the noise- the creation of worlds from matter unorganized-  for Divine Humanity as a parable, or as a literal reality for those who can see it that way.

You sound fairly certain about these things.  I have a sense that there are some elements of truth in those ideas, but I lack any certainty.  The closest I might be willing to assert is a degree of hope.  But at the same time, I'm ok if all of those propositions are just randomness, and that the only meaning in all of this is just the meaning that we humans create.  And that is good enough to motivate me as well.  That is why I consider myself partially influenced and inspired by humanism.  It still motivates me to be a better person even if there is no divine plan or meaning to life.  We create our own stories and we live them.  I see the human experience similar to a beautiful piece of art.  

[Thinking]

I don't advertise my unbelief, but I don't hide it either. For example, I don't participate in blessings and ordinations. On the other hand, when I meet and old friend, the first thing out of my mouth isn't, "Guess what? I don't believe in the Church anymore." Anyway, on to the story.

A few years ago I saw an old friend in a social setting. One of the first things he asked was, "Have they made you a bishop yet?" I replied, "The day that they make me a bishop is the day that you know the Church isn't true."

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I don't advertise my unbelief, but I don't hide it either. For example, I don't participate in blessings and ordinations. On the other hand, when I meet and old friend, the first thing out of my mouth isn't, "Guess what? I don't believe in the Church anymore." Anyway, on to the story.

A few years ago I saw an old friend in a social setting. One of the first things he asked was, "Have they made you a bishop yet?" I replied, "The day that they make me a bishop is the day that you know the Church isn't true."

Nah, if it happens think of it as an Alma and Amulek situation. 😜

[Boanerges]

5 hours ago, Traela said:

Hopefully he is absolutely thrilled at the idea that he may be disqualified from being a bishop.

 

He has indeed been counting on it.

[Boanerges]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Big fat amen. 

Aspirationers befuddle me. 

No aspirations on his part. He's hoping he's disqualified.

[The Nehor]

I am tempted to tell my friend that he was on the two person shortlist to be bishop a few months ago. I just want to see his reaction. Probably not right to do though. 🙁

[Boanerges]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not privy to any information about what the practices are for what kinds of information are permanently showing on membership records.  I've often wondered what my record shows, and whether or not any of my message board activity has been recorded in my file.  

Personally I have a hard time thinking that any "sins" confessed to a bishop should be held as permanent records by the church.   (with the exception of abuse and violations of the law of the land).  That all seems a little too creepy to me, as does the idea of the strengthening the members committee.  Sounds too much like the Scientologists or Big Brother.  I definitely don't like it.  

I am also not privy to that kind of information, but I'm at least 98% sure the church keeps records of all disciplinary councils. Not at the local level, mind you, but at HQ. I do not believe bishops and stake presidents are generally privy to that information though.

Since you brought it up, I am less sure about the strengthening the members committee and pretty sure they do not individual activities on sites like this where most of us are anonymous and where the rhetoric is generally tame.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

brother - That’s... so sad.  To feel less than because of the choices of another.  To believe one must be perfect to serve.   Where would he qualify to hold a calling....if all callings are indeed of equal importance, as we are taught? I hope your brother finds peace in his life.  Our SP has inactive children and he is a fabulous leader.  God didn’t step down when satan waged war. 

I don't see any reason to assume his brother felt less than or that he had to be perfect to serve.  Rather he knew the people he was over and understood them, including the young men that might still have had somewhat immature thinking and who might allow themselves to be too influenced by a peer's behaviour, especially if in other ways he was a great example (and deciding a mission is not for you is not a bad example imo, but it might be important to explain that one's reasoning is for oneself and others should decide on their own reasons to go or not).

Edited June 7, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

I am also not privy to that kind of information, but I'm at least 98% sure the church keeps records of all disciplinary councils. Not at the local level, mind you, but at HQ. I do not believe bishops and stake presidents are generally privy to that information though.

Since you brought it up, I am less sure about the strengthening the members committee and pretty sure they do not individual activities on sites like this where most of us are anonymous and where the rhetoric is generally tame.

The records do exist but are restricted to General Authorities. On rare occasions I have heard of them being given to a local leader after discipline was completed but the one case I know of was very unique.

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

I am also not privy to that kind of information, but I'm at least 98% sure the church keeps records of all disciplinary councils. Not at the local level, mind you, but at HQ. I do not believe bishops and stake presidents are generally privy to that information though.

Since you brought it up, I am less sure about the strengthening the members committee and pretty sure they do not individual activities on sites like this where most of us are anonymous and where the rhetoric is generally tame.

I concur that DC records are likely kept.  I remember when I was a ward clerk, that were specific places in MLS to record disciplinary council information.  I've always imagined that Bishops and SPs have access to this information if they wanted to see it in the system.  But perhaps they have to make a special request to HQ, I don't know that for sure.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I concur that DC records are likely kept.  I remember when I was a ward clerk, that were specific places in MLS to record disciplinary council information.  I've always imagined that Bishops and SPs have access to this information if they wanted to see it in the system.  But perhaps they have to make a special request to HQ, I don't know that for sure.

I am 95% sure the bishop cannot access disciplinary files where the discipline is complete. I might talk to the bishop and see if we can test it. I know I cannot (Ward Clerk) but he has access I do not. Now I am curious.

Edited June 7, 2019 by The Nehor

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I am 95% sure the bishop cannot access old disciplinary files. I might talk to the bishop and see if we can test it. Now I am curious.

Let us know what you find out.  

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I concur that DC records are likely kept.  I remember when I was a ward clerk, that were specific places in MLS to record disciplinary council information.  I've always imagined that Bishops and SPs have access to this information if they wanted to see it in the system.  But perhaps they have to make a special request to HQ, I don't know that for sure.

As bishop I was unable to access old DC records directly. I had to request access to the records/notes.

I think that's a good thing. There must be a reasonable need to access the info and that reasonable need must be shown before access is granted. Usually (almost always) that need is the reconvening of a DC. But it does illustrate that records are kept but I don't know if the old handwritten reports have ever been digitized for easier access.

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Let us know what you find out.  

I will if I can. Problem is I do not know if we have anyone we can use as a test case. I actually doubt it.

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As bishop I was unable to access old DC records directly. I had to request access to the records/notes.

I think that's a good thing. There must be a reasonable need to access the info and that reasonable need must be shown before access is granted. Usually (almost always) that need is the reconvening of a DC. But it does illustrate that records are kept but I don't know if the old handwritten reports have ever been digitized for easier access.

Bishops can now access the notes for ongoing discipline online even between DCs but only for members of their ward. A few others (clerks) can see who is under discipline but do not have access to notes.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Also 1 Timothy 3

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Vs 2. One wife - must be married and loyal to her. I.e one wife at a time.

vs 4. Children - meaning two or more.😉

vs 7. Are without- must be a respected in the community.

These are just some of the ways I have heard my IBC buddy interpret these verses.

A man who desires the office of a bishop needs to do some serious introspection.....and possibly a psychiatric exam. There's a reason being asked to serve is called a "calling."

Edited June 7, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Bishops can now access the notes for ongoing discipline online even between DCs but only for members of their ward. A few others (clerks) can see who is under discipline but do not have access to notes.

What about discipline that was in the past and is not ongoing?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Traela said:

Hopefully he is absolutely thrilled at the idea that he may be disqualified from being a bishop.

There are no intrinsic rights involved in the callings we get. If he is the man that has been described I doubt very much he would be disappointed.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

do it!!!!! hahahahahhaha! we have this lady who talks back to the speakers sometimes, it temporarily throws you off though-I think she thinks she's involved in the talk somehow🙄

We have one of those, too. Before she joined the Church, she belonged to an Evangelical Protestant church where audience participation was encouraged. Her comments are usually pretty good.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting history, I'm not that familiar with the Angela Davis episode, but I did read about it on wikipedia just to get a brief summary.  Reading between the lines here, it sounds like you might view following Ms. Davis as a mistake made earlier in life and that you've found a better path now?  Can you clarify what it is about her and the movement that was mistaken?  I'm genuinely curious, as I did read about the courtroom incident where 4 people were killed, and clearly that was a tragedy, but I wasn't alive and am not well versed on this period of history and I'm not in a position to place judgment on the philosophies espoused by Ms. Davis and their quality.  

My overall point was not to take this discussion political per se, it was to highlight what I see as a problem with the individual perspective of doing "what works" as that applies to religious paradigms.  Who is to judge what works?  The individual?  If thats the case deranged individuals throughout history have committed various acts that they believed were justified, but that broader society thought were egregious.  How is one to judge what works in this pragmatic paradigm, without introducing the idea that outside judgment from broader society is a component in the process?  

You sound fairly certain about these things.  I have a sense that there are some elements of truth in those ideas, but I lack any certainty.  The closest I might be willing to assert is a degree of hope.  But at the same time, I'm ok if all of those propositions are just randomness, and that the only meaning in all of this is just the meaning that we humans create.  And that is good enough to motivate me as well.  That is why I consider myself partially influenced and inspired by humanism.  It still motivates me to be a better person even if there is no divine plan or meaning to life.  We create our own stories and we live them.  I see the human experience similar to a beautiful piece of art.  

It's your path, get out of foundationalism, create a path and commit to it til it no longer works for you, then pick another. Truth is what you create, not discover.  This is a business of creating worlds

Edited June 7, 2019 by mfbukowski

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What about discipline that was in the past and is not ongoing?

Nope.