Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[jay santos]

Santos, going back and editing his posts.

edited at 11:05. Falafel comment at 11:21. Boom.

[wuapinmon]

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that we stipulate that prophets, seers, and revelators indeed have this special superpower as part of their everyday abilities. Do you also expect that this power would be used perfectly? I.e., nothing ever slips by - everything is properly detected? Do you think it is possible that someone may have had bad feelings about it, but brushed them aside? Would God ever allow them to make a mistake?

If they don't have this power, how are they any different from you or me? What you want is a Church with Authority, but without Providence.

Let's think for a second here. You say that there they are prophets, seers, and revelators, but only when god wants them to be. Let's apply reason to that idea. In an extra-religious sense, if I asked anyone to "know" that someone wasn't right for a job, due to the stirrings of their heart, we'd call that superstition, maybe enthusiasm or intuition, but it would not be sound reason.

Yet, we are told that in our Church, the Spirit leads and guides the Brethren, and the MTC President is such a high calling that it is chosen by the FP/Q12 themselves, "Special Witnesses." Those are some serious modifiers put on the titles given people so revered that we use their middle initials when referring to them like they're royalty "Henry __VIII___" "Russell __M__ Nelson."

Reason (via Hume) tells me that in order to believe that the Spirit leads and guides them, I have to:

a) always look for strong evidence
b) proportion my beliefs to the evidence
c) recognize that some things occur invariably during the human experience. For example, people will make decisions without inspiration, that, after the fact, can appear to have been inspired.
d) recognize that other things occur, less invariably, during the human experience. For example, people make decisions based on what they feel to be inspiration.
e) recognize that the veracity of human testimony is, from experience, normally a strong probability and as such amounts to a proof that what is reported likely took place.
f) recognize, however, that sometimes the veracity of human testimony is a weak probability, especially when human feelings are involved, therefore, from c) and d), when testimony is given which goes against our invariable experience, a probability, whether weak or strong, is opposing a certainty and I have to b) proportion my beliefs to the evidence.
g) remember that a religious miracle (and any kind of inspiration/whispering of the Spirit would be a miracle under natural law) is a transgression of the laws of nature by a volitional Providence. So, we have to have some uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not be worth calling a miracle, because it would be a commonplace. Since a commonplace or uniform experience amounts to a proof that a miracle would be a transgression, if God deigns to intercede in the world, there is direct full proof against the existence of any miracle at all.

It's easy to mock Tacitus' description of the tribes to the east of the Dnieper River:
Tacitus.JPG

But, was he that much different from us?

And yet, while it might be unreasonable to believe in miracles and inspired callings and men who can have God tell them if Joseph Bishop should or should not be called as MTC President, one would hope that Providence, which isn't just a synonym for God, but means a form of God who actively, volitionally, and naturally intercedes in this world in a protective manner, is not an impossibility, however remote, because of e).

[All-American]

Those are some serious modifiers put on the titles given people so revered that we use their middle initials when referring to them like they're royalty "Henry __VIII___" "Russell __M__ Nelson.".

Oh, please. Yeah, we think of them as prophets, seers, and revelators, but here's how you know we REALLY think they're something special: we use their initials. I guess this tells you all you need to know about how the academy feels about the acting skills of William H. Macy.

[wuapinmon]

Can't we just have, like, a normal conversation?

Dude, you asked one of the most problematic question in Judeo-Christian theology. What do you mean by a normal conversation? I can have it at whatever level you want. I just assume that you're as intelligent as you were the time we had dinner together and can handle what I put up on here.

[wuapinmon]

Oh, please. Yeah, we think of them as prophets, seers, and revelators, but here's how you know we REALLY think they're something special: we use their initials. I guess this tells you all you need to know about how the academy feels about the acting skills of William H. Macy.

That's a brand name he chose. Shall we go down that rabbit hole?

[creekster]

Dude, you asked one of the most problematic question in Judeo-Christian theology. What do you mean by a normal conversation? I can have it at whatever level you want. I just assume that you're as intelligent as you were the time we had dinner together and can handle what I put up on here.

He might be, but I'm not. I didn't understand it so just cruised past.

[Moliere]

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that we stipulate that prophets, seers, and revelators indeed have this special superpower as part of their everyday abilities. Do you also expect that this power would be used perfectly? I.e., nothing ever slips by - everything is properly detected? Do you think it is possible that someone may have had bad feelings about it, but brushed them aside? Would God ever allow them to make a mistake?

I agree. However, I find it weird that you would call the spirit of discernment a special superpower. Do we as a church no longer believe in spiritual gifts?

This is especially odd coming from Moliere, who has described himself as a Mormon deist. All of the sudden he wants God to micro-manage every calling?

Crap like Bishop is why I’m a Mormon deist. It’s how I’ve preserved my faith.

[falafel]

Dude, you asked one of the most problematic question in Judeo-Christian theology. What do you mean by a normal conversation? I can have it at whatever level you want. I just assume that you're as intelligent as you were the time we had dinner together and can handle what I put up on here.

I didn't ask that question, I referenced the debate over that question. To me, the two issues are the same. Your wife is basically asking how God could permit Bishop to be MTC President. How can God permit any of the horrible things to happen to his children? If you want God to prevent one bad thing, then you should want God to prevent all of them, and then we are talking about a very different earthly experience and one that I don't think any of us are looking for.

My "normal conversation," I mean one that doesn't include me looking up scholarly theological texts while at work.

[falafel]

Crap like Bishop is why I’m a Mormon deist. It’s how I’ve preserved my faith.

So then why are you suggesting that God should have stopped Bishop from becoming MTC President? Are you a Mormon deist who is dissatisfied with deism?

[creekster]

If they don't have this power, how are they any different from you or me? What you want is a Church with Authority, but without Providence.

Let's think for a second here. You say that there they are prophets, seers, and revelators, but only when god wants them to be. Let's apply reason to that idea. In an extra-religious sense, if I asked anyone to "know" that someone wasn't right for a job, due to the stirrings of their heart, we'd call that superstition, maybe enthusiasm or intuition, but it would not be sound reason.

Yet, we are told that in our Church, the Spirit leads and guides the Brethren, and the MTC President is such a high calling that it is chosen by the FP/Q12 themselves, "Special Witnesses." Those are some serious modifiers put on the titles given people so revered that we use their middle initials when referring to them like they're royalty "Henry __VIII___" "Russell __M__ Nelson."

Reason (via Hume) tells me that in order to believe that the Spirit leads and guides them, I have to:

a) always look for strong evidence
b) proportion my beliefs to the evidence
c) recognize that some things occur invariably during the human experience. For example, people will make decisions without inspiration, that, after the fact, can appear to have been inspired.
d) recognize that other things occur, less invariably, during the human experience. For example, people make decisions based on what they feel to be inspiration.
e) recognize that the veracity of human testimony is, from experience, normally a strong probability and as such amounts to a proof that what is reported likely took place.
f) recognize, however, that sometimes the veracity of human testimony is a weak probability, especially when human feelings are involved, therefore, from c) and d), when testimony is given which goes against our invariable experience, a probability, whether weak or strong, is opposing a certainty and I have to b) proportion my beliefs to the evidence.
g) remember that a religious miracle (and any kind of inspiration/whispering of the Spirit would be a miracle under natural law) is a transgression of the laws of nature by a volitional Providence. So, we have to have some uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not be worth calling a miracle, because it would be a commonplace. Since a commonplace or uniform experience amounts to a proof that a miracle would be a transgression, if God deigns to intercede in the world, there is direct full proof against the existence of any miracle at all.

It's easy to mock Tacitus' description of the tribes to the east of the Dnieper River:
[ATTACH]8703[/ATTACH]

But, was he that much different from us?

And yet, while it might be unreasonable to believe in miracles and inspired callings and men who can have God tell them if Joseph Bishop should or should not be called as MTC President, one would hope that Providence, which isn't just a synonym for God, but means a form of God who actively, volitionally, and naturally intercedes in this world in a protective manner, is not an impossibility, however remote, because of e).

They are special witnesses of Christ. Not of the purity of the souls of all those they call. Not even of the purity of the souls of the others in the quorum. I don't think you really believe that they do or should have this extraordinary power of discernment you are pitching here. I think you are upset about one or more specific instances and so are reasoning from your conclusion. The framework you describe can lead to either conclusion, depending upon how it is manipulated as it is being applied.

Last night I attended the funeral of a 27 year old man you was engaged to be married. He was a marvelous athlete, a good student who had recently started a good career and was, by all accounts, including my own experience, one of those unusual people who makes peace wherever he goes and who always makes everyone around him feel good. He died of an asthma attack. Sudden and severe and unexpected., He apparently tried his inhaler but for some reason it failed (I don't know all the details). God could have prevented his death it seems to me, without implicating anyone else's agency. But He did not. If the faithful are left to suffer from the random vicissitudes of the natural world, how can we expect God to prevent us from experiencing those same consequences simply because we are dealing with someone who professes to share our faith?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I have no idea what GBH knew about Bishop at the time. But if he knew that he was a sexual predator and extended the calling, that would obviously be a massive mistake. I seriously doubt it was anywhere near that black and white.

Against my better judgement...

I was asked to sustain that Hinckley had the ability to receive revelation from God about Bishop, his abilities and deficiencies and past choices. (The prophet/seer part would seem to say he could also have the ability to know what would happen as Nephi was shown the beginning to the end and all detail in between, without that changing anyone’s agency, but I’ll accept your belief that prophesy or acting as a seer requires infallibility of the person sustained to those callings as well as that it would’ve limited Bishop’s agency.)

Does saying that Hinckley could’ve asked the Lord to reveal to him if the grey area of Bishop’s past might disqualify him from service require a belief of infallibility? Do we not believe that the 1P and Q12 have this spiritual gift for items such as callings or only certain callings? What things are they able to see trough the grey on?

Am I allowed to be a TR holder who says that I believe they have this power except for when they don’t? Because, it has always been a yes or no belief question to me in the interview. If we believe they only have it at certain times, are we as members allowed to know what times this power is used and what times it isn’t?

I’m truly happy that you and others don’t find any incongruity in this event. Sadly, I do. Cardiac ealrlier said stop believing in mystical powers, Lebowski and Creek seem to be hedging between don’t believe in mystical powers all the time just sometimes. I love the church, it makes me happy to be a member and attend. Am I asked to sacrifice all I have to God leading all decisions, or a group that is very good people doing their absolute best? Because I’m in, but I’d like to know which one I belong to.

[creekster]

I agree. However, I find it weird that you would call the spirit of discernment a special superpower. Do we as a church no longer believe in spiritual gifts?



Crap like Bishop is why I’m a Mormon deist. It’s how I’ve preserved my faith.

I don't think he is calling the Power of Discernment a superpower. I think he is saying that what you are demanding, an instant, constant and always accurate discernment, would be a superpower that no one has ever claimed to have nor has God ever promised, per se.

[Northwestcoug]

So then why are you suggesting that God should have stopped Bishop from becoming MTC President? Are you a Mormon deist who is dissatisfied with deism?

LOL. If that isn't prime podcast material, I don't know what is.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I didn't ask that question, I referenced the debate over that question. To me, the two issues are the same. Your wife is basically asking how God could permit Bishop to be MTC President. How can God permit any of the horrible things to happen to his children? If you want God to prevent one bad thing, then you should want God to prevent all of them, and then we are talking about a very different earthly experience and one that I don't think any of us are looking for.

My "normal conversation," I mean one that doesn't include me looking up scholarly theological texts while at work.

I think God allowing a predator to be called by one of His prophet, seers, and revalators is a different conversation then the one about him allowing bad things to happen to children.

God allows people to exercise their agency that is part of the plan and why bad things happen to his children. That is a different conversation than God not activating an Apostle's superpower when he is making a large calling. Is the argument that the Apostle used his agency to ignore his superpower?

[creekster]

Against my better judgement...

I was asked to sustain that Hinckley had the ability to receive revelation from God about Bishop, his abilities and deficiencies and past choices. (The prophet/seer part would seem to say he could also have the ability to know what would happen as Nephi was shown the beginning to the end and all detail in between, without that changing anyone’s agency, but I’ll accept your belief that prophesy or acting as a seer requires infallibility of the person sustained to those callings as well as that it would’ve limited Bishop’s agency.)

Does saying that Hinckley could’ve asked the Lord to reveal to him if the grey area of Bishop’s past might disqualify him from service require a belief of infallibility? Do we not believe that the 1P and Q12 have this spiritual gift for items such as callings or only certain callings? What things are they able to see trough the grey on?

Am I allowed to be a TR holder who says that I believe they have this power except for when they don’t? Because, it has always been a yes or no belief question to me in the interview. If we believe they only have it at certain times, are we as members allowed to know what times this power is used and what times it isn’t?

I’m truly happy that you and others don’t find any incongruity in this event. Sadly, I do. Cardiac ealrlier said stop believing in mystical powers, Lebowski and Creek seem to be hedging between don’t believe in mystical powers all the time just sometimes. I love the church, it makes me happy to be a member and attend. Am I asked to sacrifice all I have to God leading all decisions, or a group that is very good people doing their absolute best? Because I’m in, but I’d like to know which one I belong to.

I dont want to argue with you, but I do think you are being a bit one-sided here. You are judging them against what appears to be a failure without knowing or even considering that they may have been correct many, many more times. If they were right 10:1 or 100;1 would it matter to you? That is not how I really see it, but I think if you do see it that way that it should be important to consider the times they correctly did not consider someone for a calling based on discernment of lack of qualification.