Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
    I guess it seems odd that God would want His chosen leader to rape people trying to serve Him. But, you are right I don’t think we’ve considered that option.
    I never said anything like that. I believe in a God that has the power to stop all bad things from happening to anyone. But he chooses not to use that power sometimes, for whatever reason. On this occasion, he let the bad thing happen. That doesn’t mean he WANTED it to happen.

    If you’ve never considered that God may be OK with letting bad things happen to good people sometimes, then you haven’t thought very deeply about the nature of God.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
      I'm probably just a jaded, cynical defense attorney, but it seems like about 50% of allegations you see in civil complaints these days are complete bullshit. I would take everything in the complaint with a huge grain of salt. When she comes forward with some actual evidence to back her claims up, things could get interesting. On the face of it, though, these seems like a suit that was brought for the purpose of embarrassing the Church and extorting a settlement than actually proving her story true.

      Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
      I don't think the leaking of documents to Greg Bishop is really in dispute, and predated the lawsuit. But I guess we'll see.
      At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
      -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

      Comment


      • Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

        Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
        I don't think the leaking of documents to Greg Bishop is really in dispute, and predated the lawsuit. But I guess we'll see.
        Maybe not. I haven’t followed it too closely. I just, personally, wouldn’t put too much stock on anything that’s alleged in a civil complaint without seeing some corroborating evidence.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
          I'm probably just a jaded, cynical defense attorney, but it seems like about 50% of allegations you see in civil complaints these days are complete bullshit. I would take everything in the complaint with a huge grain of salt. When she comes forward with some actual evidence to back her claims up, things could get interesting. On the face of it, though, these seems like a suit that was brought for the purpose of embarrassing the Church and extorting a settlement than actually proving her story true.

          Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
          Right, but do you blame her? She got raped by the MTC president and she went to her bishop and then to Elder Asay at church headquarters and everyone blew her off, even when Asay had information that Bishop was suspect.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
            I guess it seems odd that God would want His chosen leader to rape people trying to serve Him. But, you are right I don’t think we’ve considered that option.
            There's difference in not wanting it. And not allowing it. It's very obvious just by looking around that God allows a lot of horrible things to happen in this world.

            Comment


            • Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

              Originally posted by jay santos View Post
              Right, but do you blame her? She got raped by the MTC president and she went to her bishop and then to Elder Asay at church headquarters and everyone blew her off, even when Asay had information that Bishop was suspect.
              I don’t blame her for wanting to speak out and for being angry with the Church and wanting to get some revenge. If what she is alleging is not supported by any evidence, though, I blame her attorney for abusing the legal system.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jay santos View Post
                There's difference in not wanting it. And not allowing it. It's very obvious just by looking around that God allows a lot of horrible things to happen in this world.
                Yes, we all accept that. That is not the same as God’s chosen leader being the person doing horrible things in the world. (I realize many exMos would disagree with this stance, I’m looking from the view of a believer)

                God allows calamities and awful things to happen, to me that’s far different than God’s vessel being the delivery of the awful thing.
                Get confident, stupid
                -landpoke

                Comment


                • Originally posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
                  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.
                  Originally posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
                  So did the changes at conference come from revelation to a prophet, or good ideas of the best exceptional men to live on earth at this time? See following the counsel of either a prophet or the most exceptional person is good enough for me. I’m all in. I just want to know which one I’m all in.

                  If the Bishop situation is just an accident of fallible men, why not just admit such, offer apologies and possibly restitution and move forward. Why comment on the victim’s behaviors and membership in the church?
                  Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
                  The Bishop situation has only got 2 real options. One, this is an example of the fallibility of the brethren. They thought they had received inspiration that God did not send. Or two, God called him, but he fell from grace.
                  I disagree. Your statement above encapsulates the thinking of many members struggling with this issue (including possibly HFN and Moliere). I don't see it as an either/or kind of thing at all.

                  The truth of the matter is that God doesn't really give a shit who the middle-level managers are (down to and including Mission Presidents, Stake Presidents, Bishops, and quorum presidents). The power hierarchy of the bureaucratic organization that is "The Church" is no different (and I submit) no more inspired than any other corporation out there in the world. Corporations make informed decisions as to who to hire and fill vacancies based on references, previous experience, and a myriad of other tangible qualifications (such as the ability to pass a background check) as well as other intangibles such as interview performance and/or dress appearance. The "hiring" practices of the Corporation of the Church of LDS is no different in this regard and you should expect no less than an imperfect record of middle-level management hires.

                  The extreme vertical organization of the LDS corporation structure concentrates power at the top, where, not coincidentally the same persons we sustain as "prophets, seers, and revelators" in their roles as APOSTLES OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST act as the CEO and the Board of Directors. You might argue that God has a hand in creating and tweaking and guiding the day-to-day affairs of that structure, but I wouldn't. Low-level managers (EQPs, Bishops, SPs, et al), middle-managers (area 70s), and top management (Q15) all have a "line of authority" over those they directly supervise... and again - I suppose - you could argue that there is some kind of divine guidance to how that authority is "hired" (or called) and operates within the Church as a corporation, but I wouldn't.

                  In short, I think HFN and Moliere and swampfrog err when they conflate the roles of our leaders. They should heed well the words of the Man in Black: "Get used to disappointment."

                  Descartes, Hume, and Kant, Popper and Lorenz, and Wang Chung all agree with me.
                  You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay
                  Almost everything you post is snarky, smug, condescending, or just downright mean-spirited. --Jeffrey Lebowski

                  Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump
                  You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
                    Yes, we all accept that. That is not the same as God’s chosen leader being the person doing horrible things in the world. (I realize many exMos would disagree with this stance, I’m looking from the view of a believer)

                    God allows calamities and awful things to happen, to me that’s far different than God’s vessel being the delivery of the awful thing.
                    Have you always believed that all church leaders never make errors, never offend or never sin with respect to executing their offices within the church? If you have ever accepted that possibility then this is really no different, just to a matter of degree. Bishops make errors and sin ALL THE TIME. SPs do too. Mission Presidents say some crazy stuff. I have no doubt that some of these guys have sinned pretty badly in connection with their offices. If you can accept/recognize any imperfection among leaders in executing their callings, then I dont understand wy this one doesnt fit.

                    I fully recognize just how terribkle it was for him to do what he apparently did (although I agree that a lot of the complaint must be viewed skeptically for now, his admissions in the recording were bad enough), but it is just another variant of imperfection and sin among men, some of who end up being leaders.
                    Last edited by creekster; 04-06-2018, 11:28 AM.
                    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
                      I disagree. Your statement above encapsulates the thinking of many members struggling with this issue (including possibly HFN and Moliere). I don't see it as an either/or kind of thing at all.

                      The truth of the matter is that God doesn't really give a shit who the middle-level managers are (down to and including Mission Presidents, Stake Presidents, Bishops, and quorum presidents). The power hierarchy of the bureaucratic organization that is "The Church" is no different (and I submit) no more inspired than any other corporation out there in the world. Corporations make informed decisions as to who to hire and fill vacancies based on references, previous experience, and a myriad of other tangible qualifications (such as the ability to pass a background check) as well as other intangibles such as interview performance and/or dress appearance. The "hiring" practices of the Corporation of the Church of LDS is no different in this regard and you should expect no less than an imperfect record of middle-level management hires.

                      The extreme vertical organization of the LDS corporation structure concentrates power at the top, where, not coincidentally the same persons we sustain as "prophets, seers, and revelators" in their roles as APOSTLES OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST act as the CEO and the Board of Directors. You might argue that God has a hand in creating and tweaking and guiding the day-to-day affairs of that structure, but I wouldn't. Low-level managers (EQPs, Bishops, SPs, et al), middle-managers (area 70s), and top management (Q15) all have a "line of authority" over those they directly supervise... and again - I suppose - you could argue that there is some kind of divine guidance to how that authority is "hired" (or called) and operates within the Church as a corporation, but I wouldn't.

                      In short, I think HFN and Moliere and swampfrog err when they conflate the roles of our leaders. They should heed well the words of the Man in Black: "Get used to disappointment."

                      Descartes, Hume, and Kant, Popper and Lorenz, and Wang Chung all agree with me.
                      The ranks of Deists swell.

                      I can't say I agree with your characterization. But in effect, you are right. God doesn't stage manage the church organization. He lets it unfold in all its messy and error-filled way.

                      Moreover, I think that this idea of Deism actually fits pretty well with mormon doctrinal tenets, apart from a lot of the hyperbole that goes along with them. But that is a discussion for another time, right after Falafel gets back to Wuap's post, perhaps.
                      PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
                        I guess it seems odd that God would want His chosen leader to rape people trying to serve Him. But, you are right I don’t think we’ve considered that option.
                        Your take seems incredibly naive (edit: creekster said it better and with more tact).

                        I hope you aren't using this as your justification for leaving the Church! That would be very mpfunk of you.
                        You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay
                        Almost everything you post is snarky, smug, condescending, or just downright mean-spirited. --Jeffrey Lebowski

                        Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump
                        You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
                          Yes, we all accept that. That is not the same as God’s chosen leader being the person doing horrible things in the world. (I realize many exMos would disagree with this stance, I’m looking from the view of a believer)

                          God allows calamities and awful things to happen, to me that’s far different than God’s vessel being the delivery of the awful thing.
                          I don't get it. God allows some men to do horrible things, but not the one's he's chosen?
                          Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                          "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                          GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
                            Your take seems incredibly naive (edit: creekster said it better and with more tact).

                            I hope you aren't using this as your justification for leaving the Church! That would be very mpfunk of you.
                            I’m not going anywhere. I’ve already reiterated that. I’m willing to be naive like a child I guess. You say middle management isn’t influenced by God. I say all of my experiences in church are being instructed that these callings are issued after thoughtful prayer and inspiration from God. Most recently when we got a new SP an apostle told us that God not the apostle had called this man to lead us. So is that lie just more fallibility of the apostle or confusion of an old man or was he telling us that God did in fact reveal to him who to call?

                            So as I asked earlier am I being asked to sacrifice my allowance and play time to God leading this or exceptional men who do their best but are sometimes going to say stupid things and rape? I’m in, I love being in, but I’d like to know. Because at present they aren’t saying “We’re exceptional men who sometimes say dumb things and rape” they are saying we are prophets, seers and revelators and we ask that you will state that you believe we are such to be fully immersed in Mormonism.
                            Get confident, stupid
                            -landpoke

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
                              I’m not going anywhere. I’ve already reiterated that. I’m willing to be naive like a child I guess. You say middle management isn’t influenced by God. I say all of my experiences in church are being instructed that these callings are issued after thoughtful prayer and inspiration from God. Most recently when we got a new SP an apostle told us that God not the apostle had called this man to lead us. So is that lie just more fallibility of the apostle or confusion of an old man or was he telling us that God did in fact reveal to him who to call?

                              So as I asked earlier am I being asked to sacrifice my allowance and play time to God leading this or exceptional men who do their best but are sometimes going to say stupid things and rape? I’m in, I love being in, but I’d like to know. Because at present they aren’t saying “We’re exceptional men who sometimes say dumb things and rape” they are saying we are prophets, seers and revelators and we ask that you will state that you believe we are such to be fully immersed in Mormonism.
                              I understand your sentiment, and I don't think you are being naive or that it is unreasonable for you to ask the question you have in your second paragraph. Firstly, I have never heard a one (apostle) state that they are exceptional. On the contrary. That is something that members say, or believe to one degree or another.

                              I have stated before that it is best to wait and see, and weigh all of the evidence concerning what may have occurred. That being said, I am on record as stating that those who may have been in a position to council with this woman, and if they chose not to take her accusations seriously, should themselves be disciplined.

                              With regards to discernment and callings, it is dangerous to have unrealistic expectations about what can or cannot be foreseen by an inspired leader. No one here attempted to answer my questions yesterday in that regard. Precisely because there is no mechanism available to mankind that will allow us to ever truly discern and predict another persons choices. Agency is paramount to God's plan. It cannot be taken from us, no matter how much Decartes et al (might) disagree.
                              Last edited by tooblue; 04-06-2018, 11:59 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by creekster View Post
                                Have you always believed that all church leaders never make errors, never offend or never sin with respect to executing their offices within the church? If you have ever accepted that possibility then this is really no different, just to a matter of degree. Bishops make errors and sin ALL THE TIME. SPs do too. Mission Presidents say some crazy stuff. I have no doubt that some of these guys have sinned pretty badly in connection with their offices. If you can accept/recognize any imperfection among leaders in executing their callings, then I dont understand wy this one doesnt fit.

                                I fully recognize just how terribkle it was for him to do what he apparently did (although I agree that a lot of the complaint must be viewed skeptically for now, his admissions in the recording were bad enough), but it is just another variant of imperfection and sin among men, some of who end up being leaders.
                                Originally posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
                                Your take seems incredibly naive (edit: creekster said it better and with more tact).

                                I hope you aren't using this as your justification for leaving the Church! That would be very mpfunk of you.

                                What HFNW is asking, gentlemen, is where do you draw a line? Where does God draw a line? Is there a line? Could there be a line? If there is no line, what's the point of having an interview before, during, or after about worthiness to hold a calling? If you can do, apparently, almost anything, and get and/or remain in a calling, what does any of it matter?

                                Juxtapose that with, say, maybe, a board member who, you know, was serving a mission, and felt guilty about something they had done BEFORE their mission, felt godly sorrow, confessed it, and was sent home in disgrace, and only had one person even treat them like a human being when he got home early from his mission. Consider that perspective.

                                HFNW is asking, truly, if there is any Providence in this world, at all, when does it come in? As missionaries we preach that "God is no respecter of persons," but if you're that young man sent home early, reading about this guy getting to remain as MISSION PRESIDENT, later called as the <REDACTED> <REDACTED> <REDACTED> MTC PRESIDENT, I can see, easily, how you might begin to wonder, you know, what the <Redacting><Redacted>, God?
                                "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X