Callings given to imperfect human beings

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

People.  I’m out of popcorn with this thread. 

As the OP you can always request that a thread be closed if you think it's run it's course.

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, cinepro said:

In the end, I think the best (and inevitable) thing for the Church to do is this.

Pretend that there is no discernment or inspiration with callings.  While there may be times when a leader feels that there is some discernment or inspiration happening, pretend that every calling is being made based solely on the mental faculties and knowledge of those making the call. 

This means background checks, training, but most of all, the public acknowledgement to the members that this is how things are being done.  The ideas about a "gift of discernment" will go the way of the gift of "speaking in tongues."  A hundred years from now, scholars will say "Hey, did you know that LDS leaders used to think that God was telling them who to call to positions instead of them just figuring it out themselves" and people will say "Huh, that's weird.  I wonder why they thought that?"

Once the leaders stop thinking they can read minds (they can't) and the members stop expecting them to (they should), things will get much better.  Not that we won't still have sexual deviants called as Bishops and Nursery leaders, but when it happens, people just won't be so surprised.  Because that's just what happens, no matter how careful you are.

That would be lying. I have seen inspiration involved in most callings.

[MustardSeed]

This thread has run its course and beyond.  But by all means knock yourselves out.  

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That would be lying. I have seen inspiration involved in most callings.

I can't say anything about most callings but I've seen some pretty impressive inspiration and revelation in a couple of callings.  I agree that saying there is no inspiration would be the easiest (and require the least from members) but that wouldn't be honest or accurate for all callings.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I intended to paint with a broader brush than a simple focus on SA but wanted to also leave discussion open to include the reference to the dressing room debacle. The point was to help Bluebells post stay focused. 

*If I need to clarify, * I do not believe this bishop’s call was inspired, as evidenced by his dangerous proclivities. 

I also have stated that I believe God is less involved than we seem to need him to be. 

And if I need to clarify, “human imperfections” was used to include all behaviors like quirks, personality challenges, sins and crimes- for purpose of the conversation. 

I hope the intent of the thread is now clear. 

Thank you for clarifying your intent. I too intended to keep my remarks broad. I have insufficient specifics about the case alluded to in this thread to make comments any narrower than I have.

If I saw that a sexual abuser, or someone who began sexually abusing after he was called, was sexually abusing someone through his calling in the Church, or despite his calling in the Church, I would not assume the calling was uninspired. The abuser may have simply failed to respond to an inspired invitation that the Lord extended with the expectation that he repent. This is the opposite scenario of the brother of Jared, who responded, uninvited, and in a way the Lord did not expect, and without external inspiration, only with his internal spiritual sight. Agency trumps everything, even the Lord's foreknowledge (which I consider a form of faith per Alma 32).

I think the eternal principle of agency requires that God be involved in everything we do (He gave us our agency), but everything we do is not in line with His will (His will is what He does with His agency).

I still think "imperfection" is a euphemism for sexual abuse.

[MustardSeed]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for clarifying your intent. I too intended to keep my remarks broad. I have insufficient specifics about the case alluded to in this thread to make comments any narrower than I have.

If I saw that a sexual abuser, or someone who began sexually abusing after he was called, was sexually abusing someone through his calling in the Church, or despite his calling in the Church, I would not assume the calling was uninspired. The abuser may have simply failed to respond to an inspired invitation that the Lord extended with the expectation that he repent. This is the opposite scenario of the brother of Jared, who responded, uninvited, and in a way the Lord did not expect, and without external inspiration, only with his internal spiritual sight. Agency trumps everything, even the Lord's foreknowledge (which I consider a form of faith per Alma 32).

I think the eternal principle of agency requires that God be involved in everything we do (He gave us our agency), but everything we do is not in line with His will (His will is what He does with His agency).

I still think "imperfection" is a euphemism for sexual abuse.

Makes sense.  And, I suppose sexual abuse is certainly an example of how "imperfect" humans can actually be. 

[Stargazer]

On 8/22/2019 at 8:29 PM, ttribe said:

So, is God incapable of identifying future transgressions to prevent a child from becoming the prey of a sexual predator in waiting?  

Why limit ourselves to sex abuse?  Is sex abuse worse than murder?

Why did God permit Genghis Khan and his armies to kill 3/4 of the people on the Iranian Plateau, about 10-15 million people?  And many millions more in many other places?

People complain about these guys with their one-off crimes, when genocidal mass murderers seem to get off without mention.

I'm sure God knew what Khan would do, but did He stop him?  Nope.

And I'm sure God is capable of "doing something", but that would appear to be against the principle of agency, which He seems to hold as inviolate.  Kind of like the United Federation of Planets does with respect to the Prime Directive.  Unless James T. Kirk is in the mix, that is.

[MustardSeed]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Why limit ourselves to sex abuse?  Is sex abuse worse than murder?

I always say if God interrupted all the bad stuff then stubbing your toe would become traumatic.  

[changed]

On 8/22/2019 at 1:17 PM, MustardSeed said:

Out of respect to Bluebells thread request to remain on topic: 

Judas was imperfect.  Did the Savior know he would be a traitor when he called him? 

Are human imperfections proof that callings are not made through revelation? 

 

Just seeing this thread, sorry - quite a few threads with this theme circulating around right now.  

I really do believe imperfect people are called in order to give everyone individual freedom to think and act for themselves.  This extends beyond just imperfect people - but imperfect religious institutions as well.  No one should feel any obligation to follow any organization or person knowing everyone and everything is imperfect.  In the end, we are each accountable to ourselves and our own conscience, and cannot blame our actions on others.  I believe the real test is about being faithful to our own conscience, rather than being faithful and loyal to any church leader, or any organization.  Those who stand up for truth and righteousness - even when this involves standing up against so-called authority figures, are the strongest spiritual people I know.  

Some believe staying in church makes you faithful.  I now believe leaving corrupt organizations is a symbol of faith.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Makes sense.  And, I suppose sexual abuse is certainly an example of how "imperfect" humans can actually be. 

That's the first thing that comes to mind for me...!

[Rain]

48 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Why limit ourselves to sex abuse?  Is sex abuse worse than murder?

Why did God permit Genghis Khan and his armies to kill 3/4 of the people on the Iranian Plateau, about 10-15 million people?  And many millions more in many other places?

People complain about these guys with their one-off crimes, when genocidal mass murderers seem to get off without mention.

 

Two different situations. I've never known anyone in our church (or even out, but I don't know a lot of history)  to say Ghengis Khan was called by God to lead.

48 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm sure God knew what Khan would do, but did He stop him?  Nope.

And I'm sure God is capable of "doing something", but that would appear to be against the principle of agency, which He seems to hold as inviolate.

But he gave us agency to do something.

President Nelson quoted that good information makes for good inspiration. Part of getting inspiration means that we gather what info we can and then prayerfully use our agency in calling them. 

I do think we can be spiritually directed in who to call. You can see miracles unfold, but like conference talks have talked about sometimes when praying God shows his trust in you to use you agency wisely. By not coming out and clearly stating "call him" it may be showing one of these times. 

 

48 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

  Kind of like the United Federation of Planets does with respect to the Prime Directive.  Unless James T. Kirk is in the mix, that is.

 

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Why limit ourselves to sex abuse?  Is sex abuse worse than murder?

Why did God permit Genghis Khan and his armies to kill 3/4 of the people on the Iranian Plateau, about 10-15 million people?  And many millions more in many other places?

People complain about these guys with their one-off crimes, when genocidal mass murderers seem to get off without mention.

I'm sure God knew what Khan would do, but did He stop him?  Nope.

And I'm sure God is capable of "doing something", but that would appear to be against the principle of agency, which He seems to hold as inviolate.  Kind of like the United Federation of Planets does with respect to the Prime Directive.  Unless James T. Kirk is in the mix, that is.

We are talking, specifically, about supposedly inspired callings into positions of leadership and responsibility, not war-mongering despots.  Your false equivalence is nonsense.

[Stargazer]

38 minutes ago, ttribe said:

We are talking, specifically, about supposedly inspired callings into positions of leadership and responsibility, not war-mongering despots.  Your false equivalence is nonsense.

Fair enough! I got a tic in my brain and out it poured. Sorry about that.

I think I might have already posted something about inspired callings, so I guess I've done my part here.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Stargazer

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What does this imply regarding being wary of sheep who are inwardly ravening wolves and reveal it to us by their fruits?

That sometimes God allows or even places wolves in our path to test our faith.  There must needs be opposition in ALL things.  This includes the occasional wolf called to a leadership calling.

Edited August 23, 2019 by JLHPROF

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That sometimes God allows or even places wolves in our path to test our faith.  There must needs be opposition in ALL things.  This includes the occasional wolf called to a leadership calling.

I'm sure that brings a tremendous amount of comfort to the child who is victimized by one of these "tests."

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm sure that brings a tremendous amount of comfort to the child who is victimized by one of these "tests."

Don't play the sympathy card.  It's becomes impossible to have a reasonable discussion once the breastbeating starts.

Child abuse is horrendous.  A virtually unforgivable sin.  Nobody says otherwise.

But the fact that God could call by revelation an individual his forsight tells him could commit a terrible sin or harm others is a different story.  It doesn't make the revelation false, so doing our best as foolish mortals to try to understand God's reasoning is the best we can do.

Yelling there was no inspiration/revelation behind the call may make us feel better about God and the situation but it simply isn't always the case.  Sometimes God really does call potentially great sinners, seemingly intentionally.  

So the better question is why.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

We are talking, specifically, about supposedly inspired callings into positions of leadership and responsibility, not war-mongering despots.  Your false equivalence is nonsense.

I think that we have to be careful about making judgements there. The case of Judas Iscariot being called as an apostle already has been broached by cinepro. Then there is the case of Saul being anointed king by Samuel the prophet. We know that Saul went off the rails afterwards. Then, Samuel anointed David to be king in Saul's stead. A David goes off the track committing adultery and murder. Nathan has Zadok the priest anoint Solomon to be the king to forestall Adonijah's bid for the kingship. And God dealt directly with Solomon as he had done with David before him, yet Solomon went off the rails also, departing from the wisdom that the Lord had given him.

It would seem that even God calls people based upon what the good works and character they have displayed instead of upon what they might or even will do.

Glenn

[ttribe]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Don't play the sympathy card.  It's becomes impossible to have a reasonable discussion once the breastbeating starts.

Child abuse is horrendous.  A virtually unforgivable sin.  Nobody says otherwise.

But the fact that God could call by revelation an individual his forsight tells him could commit a terrible sin or harm others is a different story.  It doesn't make the revelation false, so doing our best as foolish mortals to try to understand God's reasoning is the best we can do.

Yelling there was no inspiration/revelation behind the call may make us feel better about God and the situation but it simply isn't always the case.  Sometimes God really does call potentially great sinners, seemingly intentionally.  

So the better question is why.

I'll "play the sympathy card" all I want, thank you very much.  If you don't consider the outcome, then you are just backing into a predetermined conclusion designed specifically to maintain your faith.  You seem to want it to remain clinical and easy to keep concluding God is behind every call.  Maybe, just maybe, that isn't the case.  Maybe God had nothing to do with the calling.  If you can't entertain that notion, there is no point in studying the issue, because you've already determined the answer you are going to get. 

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I think that we have to be careful about making judgements there. The case of Judas Iscariot being called as an apostle already has been broached by cinepro. Then there is the case of Saul being anointed king by Samuel the prophet. We know that Saul went off the rails afterwards. Then, Samuel anointed David to be king in Saul's stead. A David goes off the track committing adultery and murder. Nathan has Zadok the priest anoint Solomon to be the king to forestall Adonijah's bid for the kingship. And God dealt directly with Solomon as he had done with David before him, yet Solomon went off the rails also, departing from the wisdom that the Lord had given him.

It would seem that even God calls people based upon what the good works and character they have displayed instead of upon what they might or even will do.

Glenn

Sounds like there's no need for God's involvement, then.  We simply take resumes and come up with the best display of good works to fill callings.  Easy, enough.  No revelation required.

[Glenn101]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Sounds like there's no need for God's involvement, then.  We simply take resumes and come up with the best display of good works to fill callings.  Easy, enough.  No revelation required.

Well, one could come to that conclusion. It's all a hoax and we are wasting our time. Or, based upon that same information, one could conclude that there is more to the puzzle than meets the eye and maybe we do not have all of the answers.

There are a lot of things from the Old Testament I have had to put on my shelf because I do not understand why some things occurred or were allowed to occur with maybe God having a hand in it or being the author of the policy or act. You seem to have such problems maybe with more recent events, etc. which have pushed you away. I actually understand how that can happen. I have received or been involved in a few spiritual experiences which I guess are the foundation of my testimony and I have to evaluate everything that happens based upon that. When I have questions that cannot be answered right now, I have to put them on that shelf until a later time when all will be revealed. I am absolutely confident that will happen.

In the meantime we still are fallible human beings working with other fallible human beings and when we make mistakes we have to deal with it, take out lumps and hopefully come out a better person. When other people make mistakes we need also to deal with it and do our best to help the malefactor and those affected by those mistakes. I am not going to walk away from my testimony because things happen which do not fit the paradigms that I have developed as to how things should be because my paradigm may have been formed lacking some critical information.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You seem to want it to remain clinical and easy to keep concluding God is behind every call.  Maybe, just maybe, that isn't the case.  Maybe God had nothing to do with the calling.  

Not at all.  I don't believe God is behind every call. 

However unlike many I just don't assume because a man turns out to be evil that God had nothing to do with the call.  It seems like you refuse to consider the possibility that God would call a man who chooses wicked acts.  That is an assumption designed to make us feel better about God but not evident in the facts.

Sometimes God calls sinners and evil men for his own purposes.  I seek to understand God.  Not to pretend he only does things I find acceptable.  So I want to understand why.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/22/2019 at 12:17 PM, MustardSeed said:

...............

Judas was imperfect.  Did the Savior know he would be a traitor when he called him? 

Kin Hubbard said: "Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny."

On 8/22/2019 at 12:17 PM, MustardSeed said:

Are human imperfections proof that callings are not made through revelation? 

No.  Not at all.  All humans are imperfect and need to be tried in the crucible of reality.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That sometimes God allows or even places wolves in our path to test our faith.  There must needs be opposition in ALL things.  This includes the occasional wolf called to a leadership calling.

And when the wolf bears bad fruit, not just in their personal lives but as a leader? 

[rodheadlee]

Are caliings inspired or not? Well my question is how many  callings are there in the church within any given period of time. What we have 15 million members so figure in a year's time there's 5 million callings? So if only 1% of these callings are not chosen by inspired people that's 50,000 opportunities for evil to happen.

Edited August 24, 2019 by rodheadlee

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And when the wolf bears bad fruit, not just in their personal lives but as a leader? 

Do we lose our testimonies?  Blame the Church, or worse blame God?  Throw the baby out with the bathwater?

We must be tested in all things, face opposition in all things.  We must stand firm.