Why do we acknowledge symbolism and also demand literalism in our scriptural stories?

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

It's only a sample size of two, but this tends to support my suspicion that when there is an overriding of a bishop (barring clear, obvious malpractice), there are a host of red flags indicating that it's not a good idea. 

I don't know if you were privy to explanations, @HappyJackWagon, but did he ever justify or rationalize his choices in this matter? As you describe it --- holy smokes. 

Despite my 2 stories I strongly believe that if a Bishop misbehaves and denies a recommend unjustly the SP to work with that bishop and not allow any injustice to stand. But that should be done delicately. I'm very aware of situations where a bishop withheld a recommend from a church employee which caused the employee to lose his job. If a bishop behaves badly his leader should remedy the situation. Leaders probably back each other up more often than they should which causes real harm to the aggrieved member

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is what a lot of people are considering and why so many are stepping away.

In Utah, perhaps where the steel coated authority was simply never doubted.

So you are saying these folks never did have their own testimonies and were in simply because everyone else was?

From my perspective, it is hard to understand how anyone could accept the golden plate theory without getting clobbered by God himself.

But I simply cannot doubt that the TRUTHS found in the BOM are directly from God.

I did not have a theophany, but it was something I will never doubt or forget. 

God wants me here. Period. No doubts.

It's up to me to figure out how that fits with all the stories.

I guess it's because I am used to ignoring human flaws in philosophers and evaluating philosophies instead. 

I can't understand why others would just accept authority blindly like that.

I don't know any members hereabouts, where joining the church raises eyebrows. at least 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Something similar happened while I was bishop. It definitely colored my attitude towards the SP afterwards. He overrode me when I denied a TR, but the recommend still requires 2 signatures. I know I never signed it so I'm not sure what he did (maybe he had one of my counselors co-signed, or maybe one of his). That's a different problem IMO.

I had a couple who were in leadership positions. One was High Council, the other was YW Pres. The SP had heard some rumblings about some bad behavior on their part so asked me to pay attention in case I became aware of anything. Not long after that I got a call from their teen daughter who was running away because of physical abuse in the home. I started talking to her but when they found out she was talking to me the went around me and took her back to her previous bishop for counseling ( our ward had recently been created so they went back to their old ward/bishop) The SP approved this move.

Still, it was TR time and they had to come to me for that. They admitted to behavior that I consider physically abusive so I would not give them a recommend. Considering that the woman was also the YW Pres and she was directly involved in physically assaulting her daughter (who was one of our YW) I released her from the calling. They got upset, had their records moved from the ward back to their old ward (with SP approval). They got their TR and the brother continued serving on the HC and later replaced me as bishop.

So IMO this couple behaved poorly but the SP backed them up despite their continued bad and abusive behavior. They got their recommend so I suppose they won the battle. But I lost a TON of respect for the SP and even more when this family was moved back into the ward and he was called as bishop to replace me. I have zero confidence in the inspiration of callings after that. And in case you think the SP was a bad guy or a poor leader, he is actually a very nice man who is now a general authority.

Disagreeing with leadership, especially over something that you believe is really important, can be a hard trial.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

It's only a sample size of two, but this tends to support my suspicion that when there is an overriding of a bishop (barring clear, obvious malpractice), there are a host of red flags indicating that it's not a good idea. 

I don't know if you were privy to explanations, @HappyJackWagon, but did he ever justify or rationalize his choices in this matter? As you describe it --- holy smokes. 

Actually, in my case, I think it was probably warranted.  The TR was denied based on an interpretation by the bishop of an answer that was given that could easily have been interpreted a different way.  That's probably why the bishop didn't have any hard feelings when the SP did just that.

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Disagreeing with leadership, especially over something that you believe is really important, can be a hard trial.

Yeah, I have some leaders in my stake I respect and like but I am frustrated dealing with and watching my friends deal with the fallout of their decisions and their (for lack of a better word) muddling. I meant to type meddling but both words work.

[Stargazer]

On 1/4/2022 at 4:55 PM, Teancum said:

I think science can refute that humans are descended from one couple that lived 6000 years ago.

Probably, but it's only devotees of Archbishop Ussher (including those who never heard of him) who are so devoted to the 6000 years in question.

And the 6000 years was never doctrinal, so refutation is pointless.

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Probably, but it's only devotees of Archbishop Ussher (including those who never heard of him) who are so devoted to the 6000 years in question.

And the 6000 years was never doctrinal, so refutation is pointless.

Powerful LDS leaders believed it and preached it as doctrinal.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am glad Joseph did not put traditional canon above personal testimony

Not a good comparison.
 

What you call “traditional canon” in young Joseph’s day amounted to false or corrupt doctrine. Joseph himself was taught this during the theophany he experienced in the sacred grove. 
 

By contrast, those who profess only a symbolic or allegorical belief in fundamental teachings such as the Atonement, the Restoration and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon are the ones who are subject to false doctrine. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Despite my 2 stories I strongly believe that if a Bishop misbehaves and denies a recommend unjustly the SP to work with that bishop and not allow any injustice to stand.

I agree --- key words being "misbehaves" and "unjustly." I also think a better thing would be to meet with the person/couple and the bishop and hammer everything out together, rather than simply overriding it. That allows the bishop to respond in real time and for the SP to respond as well, so everyone leaves knowing what's what (even if there isn't full accord).

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm very aware of situations where a bishop withheld a recommend from a church employee which caused the employee to lose his job.

Again, I don't think things should be allowed to slide solely to prevent job loss, loss of an endorsement, etc. --- **if** the person actually is in the wrong. That strikes me as the same thing as people agitating for active apostate (as in, actively and publicly tearing down the Church) BYU students to be allowed to stay so they can graduate. If the offense is bad enough, then the tough real world consequences (church employment, ecclesiastical endorsement, etc.) of their chosen behavior are what they are. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Despite my 2 stories I strongly believe that if a Bishop misbehaves and denies a recommend unjustly the SP to work with that bishop and not allow any injustice to stand. But that should be done delicately. I'm very aware of situations where a bishop withheld a recommend from a church employee which caused the employee to lose his job. If a bishop behaves badly his leader should remedy the situation. Leaders probably back each other up more often than they should which causes real harm to the aggrieved member

In reference to the portion I have bolded above, if eligibility for a temple recommend is a condition for employment, then the employee probably should lose the job, especially if the employee understood from the beginning that the condition was in place. 
 

I hasten to add that this does not mean the displaced employee should not be given every kindness and support in finding other employment. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

And what if the Spirit tells you to ask follow up questions? Some here would say a leader is duty-bound to ignore this and just take the "given" answer, even though he feels that something is wrong or off. 

If someone lies to his bishop, that's on him, not the bishop.

Language is too ambiguous.  If someone is going to lie in a temple rec interview, he has deeper problems than that.

I recall a high Council court to return a serial adulterer to full fellowship in which someone had the guts to ask if the individual had a problem with mastur____, and the answer, in front of 15 leaders- was

"No, I don't have a problem with m____"

Now what does that mean?

That he didn't do it or that he had no problem doing it ??

No one asked more, but the conclusion was to decide that he needed " further counseling" and teaching before he was ready for full Fellowship.

THAT might be the right course: have regular meetings in a loving environment instead of a judgmental confrontation turning down someone on the spot because the bishop got nervous over something

OR leave it up to the Lord.

If someone lies THERE the problem is bigger than a bishop can handle, it's up to a higher Judge.

All it would indicate is that the person was a bad liar. Is it easier to say a firm "no", lying to a questioner, than it is to hem and haw and give yourself away in further questioning?

A real liar is just going to lie straight up, and not suggest that he is lying, to raise suspicion 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

In Utah, perhaps where the steel coated authority was simply never doubted.

So you are saying these folks never did have their own testimonies and were in simply because everyone else was?

From my perspective, it is hard to understand how anyone could accept the golden plate theory without getting clobbered by God himself.

But I simply cannot doubt that the TRUTHS found in the BOM are directly from God.

I did not have a theophany, but it was something I will never doubt or forget. 

God wants me here. Period. No doubts.

It's up to me to figure out how that fits with all the stories.

I guess it's because I am used to ignoring human flaws in philosophers and evaluating philosophies instead. 

I can't understand why others would just accept authority blindly like that.

I don't know any members hereabouts, where joining the church raises eyebrows. at least 

 

Other than my time at BYU I've never lived in Utah. Assuming this is only a Utah thing is assuming too much.

I never said anything about people not having their own testimonies. They were taught certain things to be literal. They believed and had testimonies of things being literal, only to find out they are not.

You find it hard to believe that anyone would believe the story of the gold plates and the traditional translation story that was taught by the church? Are you serious, Clark? 

People accept authority when they are taught over and over to accept authority and when there are negative consequences if they don't.

You seem to be blaming church members for believing what the church has taught. Strange position to take.

Edited January 6, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In reference to the portion I have bolted above, if eligibility for a temple recommend is a condition for employment, then the employee probably should lose the job, especially if the employee understood from the beginning that the condition was in place. 
 

I hasten to add that this does not mean the displaced employee should not be given every kindness and support in finding other employment. 

Not when the TR is removed by the leader for a personal reason to get the person fired.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree --- key words being "misbehaves" and "unjustly." I also think a better thing would be to meet with the person/couple and the bishop and hammer everything out together, rather than simply overriding it. That allows the bishop to respond in real time and for the SP to respond as well, so everyone leaves knowing what's what (even if there isn't full accord).

Again, I don't think things should be allowed to slide solely to prevent job loss, loss of an endorsement, etc. --- **if** the person actually is in the wrong. That strikes me as the same thing as people agitating for active apostate (as in, actively and publicly tearing down the Church) BYU students to be allowed to stay so they can graduate. If the offense is bad enough, then the tough real world consequences (church employment, ecclesiastical endorsement, etc.) of their chosen behavior are what they are. 

Bishops have a lot of power sometimes that probably should have some checks and balances attached.

I have a friend who lost her job as a professor at BYU because our bishop pulled her endorsement, without ever talking to her about it.  She had no idea until BYU called her (a few days before her semester started) to tell her she was fired.  There was no recourse and she was told that it doesn't matter why the bishop pulled it, or if he made a mistake, all that matters to BYU is that he did.

The bishop actually ended up calling BYU and tell them he had made a mistake.  He was a brand new bishop and didn't really understand what pulling the endorsement meant (he had no idea she would lose her job).  He had some concerns but after talking with her (something he should have done right from the start), those were alleviated.  But, it was too late.  She could not have her job back.

It was a horrible experience for everyone involved, including the bishop I feel comfortable saying (though I think my friend would say now, years later, that it was actually good for her and put her on the path she was meant to be on).

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Actually, in my case, I think it was probably warranted.  The TR was denied based on an interpretation by the bishop of an answer that was given that could easily have been interpreted a different way.  That's probably why the bishop didn't have any hard feelings when the SP did just that.

Which leads to a question of whether there is a responsibility on the part of the temple-recommend seeker to be forthcoming and to avoid knowingly giving ambiguous responses to questions in the interview. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which leads to a question of whether there is a responsibility on the part of the temple-recommend seeker to be forthcoming and to avoid knowingly giving ambiguous responses to questions in the interview. 

It was not an ambiguous answer in the least.  It was very very candid.  More candid than was necessary most members would say.  But whether or not it allowed for a TR depended on interpretation.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not when the TR is removed by the leader for a personal reason to get the person fired.

Well, that’s another matter entirely — and perhaps cause for the leader himself to receive disciplinary action. Such abuse of power is intolerable, especially on the part of one who holds a sacred trust. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Actually, in my case, I think it was probably warranted.  The TR was denied based on an interpretation by the bishop of an answer that was given that could easily have been interpreted a different way.  That's probably why the bishop didn't have any hard feelings when the SP did just that.

I still think it would have been better to have had a meeting with the couple and the bishop so that everyone left the room knowing the what and why for the SP decision to override (I think there would have been a good chance, not knowing the details, that the bishop's decision may have stood if he had been able to respond and react in real time). Otherwise, I think that there is a risk that, as @HappyJackWagon indicated, the trust the bishop has may be irreparably harmed. Both the SP and the bishop have years of working together and lots of water to go under those bridges. I think even if the bishop is going to "lose" the issue (he's clearly wrong), it's easier for him to accept if he's able to advocate for himself in real time, rather than be informed that he was overridden. 

These stories intrigue me. I have some wild stories and experiences from my times as a bishop (death threats, letters demanding that I be released, etc.), but never any "overrides" or being thrown under the bus. What gets me is your comment that the couple has had issues with every bishop, or HJW's comment that the SP didn't want the couple to leave the church or go inactive. What about the bishop leaving the Church or going inactive? I think that these types of people and couples who are apt to come into conflict over things like this --- I think it's just the tip of the iceberg with people like that, and I don't think "feeding the troll" is good for their short or long-term spiritual health. I'm really grateful I didn't have to go through some things that others have. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was not an ambiguous answer in the least.  It was very very candid.  More candid than was necessary most members would say.  But whether or not it allowed for a TR depended on interpretation.

I would say that if it depended on interpretation, it was, by definition, ambiguous. 
 

But you are right in that if the recommend seeker did not intend the response to be ambiguous, then the decision warranted review by a higher authority and, perhaps, reversal. This, in fact, might be a case study in the prudence of having both a bishopric member and stake presidency member sign the recommend. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Bishops have a lot of power sometimes that probably should have some checks and balances attached.

I have a friend who lost her job as a professor at BYU because our bishop pulled her endorsement, without ever talking to her about it.  She had no idea until BYU called her (a few days before her semester started) to tell her she was fired.  There was no recourse and she was told that it doesn't matter why the bishop pulled it, or if he made a mistake, all that matters to BYU is that he did.

The bishop actually ended up calling BYU and tell them he had made a mistake.  He was a brand new bishop and didn't really understand what pulling the endorsement meant (he had no idea she would lose her job).  He had some concerns but after talking with her (something he should have done right from the start), those were alleviated.  But, it was too late.  She could not have her job back.

It was a horrible experience for everyone involved, including the bishop I feel comfortable saying (though I think my friend would say now, years later, that it was actually good for her and put her on the path she was meant to be on).

 

The fact that it turned out well for her in the end does not mitigate the injustice. The university should have restored her position after the bishop rescinded his withdrawal of the endorsement.
 

And by the way, I’m amazed a bishop would behave so incompetently in the first place. 

My hunch is there is more to this story that I’m not understanding or that I’m not privy to. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And in case you think the SP was a bad guy or a poor leader, he is actually a very nice man who is now a general authority.

Holy cow. Yeah, I can see where you're coming from on that. Finally.

After an interesting experience with a general authority in which it was pretty clear that he wasn't much in the way of having discernment, I can happily admit that there are definitely general authorities whom I might question inspiration in. But I've also had the opposite experience in many situations, including advance revelation to me about the validity of callings through the Spirit well before the callings were announced. I guess you could say that my testimony of the divine appointment of important leaders in this church does not include a belief in infallibility, but it does include a conviction that the Lord is directly involved with the calling of many if not most of these men and women.

The negative experience I had with a general authority, whose name I thankfully do not remember, was a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy, but at the time assigned as the president of the temple in our temple district. He spoke at a missionary event which I attended, and afterwards opened the agenda for questions from the congregation. One of the questioners, an investigator who was being actively taught by the missionaries, put forward a question that this general authority mistook for an attack question. His response was very uncharitable and defensive. I think the jaws of everyone in the room hit the floor because it was obviously a sincere question from someone who wanted to know (he had apparently asked the missionaries the question and they had encouraged him to come to that event and ask the general authority). So he did. In the silence following that faux pas, I raised my hand, was called upon by the authority, and I answered the investigator's question for him. Afterwards, a few attendees came to me to praise me for my courage in speaking up, but OMG how could I not? I was told later that this authority had done similar things in other venues. It was like he was looking for enemies. Later, upon thinking about it, I concluded that he had been called as a temple president in order to put him in a place where he could do less damage than he could in SLC. Of course I have no idea if that's why he was there.

I guess I can tell you of another general authority, Bruce D. Porter, who is now deceased. Of similar age, he served in my mission back in the early 70s, and he was a genuine spiritual giant even then. Later, in the early 1980s, when I was in the US Army in Germany, he and I were presidents of two different servicemen's branches at around the same time. He was working as an employee of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. It was great to become re-acquainted, and I was even more impressed with him. We kept up a sporadic correspondence over the years. When he passed away in 2016 he was a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy. His widow, currently the First Counselor in the General Primary Presidency, spoke in the October 2021 General Conference. Unfortunately, I never met her. I was not at all surprised when he was called to be a GA.

In amongst the giants, there's bound to be a few pygmies. 

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Bishops have a lot of power sometimes that probably should have some checks and balances attached.

I have a friend who lost her job as a professor at BYU because our bishop pulled her endorsement, without ever talking to her about it.  She had no idea until BYU called her (a few days before her semester started) to tell her she was fired.  There was no recourse and she was told that it doesn't matter why the bishop pulled it, or if he made a mistake, all that matters to BYU is that he did.

Novice or not, I can't wrap my mind around that (denying an endorsement without the person knowing it first). 

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was a horrible experience for everyone involved, including the bishop I feel comfortable saying (though I think my friend would say now, years later, that it was actually good for her and put her on the path she was meant to be on).

It sounds like she wasn't technically worthy of the endorsement, but that there is a culture for some people of "well, yeah, sure, but the job/school will be in jeopardy. How can I be the one to cause that?" It sounds to me like he did the right thing, but badly. 

Back when the Church did adoptions, people would sometimes want to adopt through the Church, but not be worthy of it (requirements were akin to TR questions). Bishops could be under tremendous pressure to "let some things slide," and this could really lay on the CogDis. I can only imagine what it would be like to deep-six someone's church employment or church school status. 

It also sounds to me like HJW's couples, or the couple you had mentioned, would have been better off in the long run if the bishops hadn't been thrown under the bus. Even though the SP would have had to deal with some angry people at the time. 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Other than my time at BYU I've never lived in Utah. Assuming this is only a Utah thing is assuming too much.

I never said anything about people not having their own testimonies. They were taught certain things to be literal. They believed and had testimonies of things being literal, only to find out they are not.

You find it hard to believe that anyone would believe the story of the gold plates and the traditional translation story that was taught by the church? Are you serious, Clark? 

People accept authority when they are taught over and over to accept authority and when there are negative consequences if they don't.

You seem to be blaming church members for believing what the church has taught. Strange position to take.

For my part, I’ve never had any trouble accepting as literally true Joseph’s account regarding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Nor would I say I’ve been “clobbered by God.”

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The negative experience I had with a general authority, whose name I thankfully do not remember, was a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy, but at the time assigned as the president of the temple in our temple district. He spoke at a missionary event which I attended, and afterwards opened the agenda for questions from the congregation. One of the questioners, an investigator who was being actively taught by the missionaries, put forward a question that this general authority mistook for an attack question. His response was very uncharitable and defensive. I think the jaws of everyone in the room hit the floor because it was obviously a sincere question from someone who wanted to know (he had apparently asked the missionaries the question and they had encouraged him to come to that event and ask the general authority). So he did. In the silence following that faux pas, I raised my hand, was called upon by the authority, and I answered the investigator's question for him. Afterwards, a few attendees came to me to praise me for my courage in speaking up, but OMG how could I not? I was told later that this authority had done similar things in other venues. It was like he was looking for enemies. Later, upon thinking about it, I concluded that he had been called as a temple president in order to put him in a place where he could do less damage than he could in SLC. Of course I have no idea if that's why he was there.

I don't know many general authorities who are good doing Q&A. It's too bad, too, because some really good and well-handled "ask anything" Q&As would be a real shot in the arm for many people (not the least of which is seeing that good and well-handled answers is possible). 

I was asked to do a series (three, I think) of "ask anything" firesides in Gilbert years ago, and people **really** liked that. There was some initial "who is this guy, and why should we care?" --- which was kind of the point: I made it clear that I didn't speak for the Church, but I do know a lot of things, and that there are limited official venues for official Church representation. The kinds of questions and things people want to discuss in a competent setting aren't going to be dealt with in the official Church venues, though. The opening thought was that we ought to be able to discuss things safely, without being bound by the answers, and that people ought not to be afraid of such discussions. People loved being able to ask and discuss doctrinal, historical, legal, etc. questions and topics. 

People's experiences with actual official representatives (Swedish Rescue, Boise Rescue, President Ballard's Phoenix Q&A, etc.) are not good. People are not even reassured that they even know much about the questions. And these are men who can speak officially for the Church, except the Church strives not to have anything that can be nailed down --- it strives not to have high-profile, official things like that. 

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would say that if it depended on interpretation, it was, by definition, ambiguous. 
 

But you are right in that if the recommend seeker did not intend the response to be ambiguous, then the decision warranted review by a higher authority and, perhaps, reversal. This, in fact, might be a case study in the prudence of having both a bishopric member and stake presidency member sign the recommend. 

It all depended on how someone interpreted the specific TR question at the heart of the issue.  Mainly, how the leader interpreted what it was specifically trying to gauge and how the answer measured up to what the question was trying to determine.  

But I agree.  It's good that the TR needs two signatures.  One person should not be the gatekeeper of the temple.