Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

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

  • Originally posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    I don't expect perfection in extending callings. I do think if the claim of zero tolerance for abuse is accurate that they have to include a system to red flag past sexual assault to prevent future callings. I think we all agree that we can't rely on superpowers.
    that makes sense, but seems like a different argument - which is a good thing, imo.
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
      right. but from an objective standpoint the standard you and creekster are advancing is: “they act by revelation except when they don’t, even if they’re saying they do sometimes.” prophets are purportedly specifically called and given a specific set of tools and keys to act as the sponsor of of god to men with respect to the church writ large. but, your version of revelation is also accurate with respect to pope francis, plato and robert plant: smart but fallible people who sometimes say good things. what’s the difference other than the toyota avalons and mr mac suits?
      I certainly wouldn't spin it like that. You (and others) seem to be arguing that if they are not perfect, there are not exceptional. I disagree.
      "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
      "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
      "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

      Comment


      • Originally posted by creekster View Post
        That question and its answer has little bearing on this specific discussion.

        If no, Bishop is possibly but not necessarily an example to support it.

        If yes, Bishop is a meaningless example outside of infallibility.
        the question is central to the discussion, knucklehead. what is the point of having a called and set apart mouthpiece of god on earth if we’re all playing a guessing game about the fidelity of that persons stagements and actions vis a vis god? how is that different from any other smart person?
        Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
          I certainly wouldn't spin it like that. You (and others) seem to be arguing that if they are not perfect, there are not exceptional. I disagree.
          but the church’s claim is not that they are exceptional or even the best men or that they’re trying really hard. it is that they are uniquely called and qualified prophets, seers and revelators with the authority and specific, technical keys to act on behalf of and speak for god.
          Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
            Do our leaders ever act under revelation anymore?
            I believe that we all act under revelation, and I do not believe the leadership has more advanced insight or revelation than you or me. And they are as fallible as all of us as well.
            "The first thing I learned upon becoming a head coach after fifteen years as an assistant was the enormous difference between making a suggestion and making a decision."

            "They talk about the economy this year. Hey, my hairline is in recession, my waistline is in inflation. Altogether, I'm in a depression."

            "I like to bike. I could beat Lance Armstrong, only because he couldn't pass me if he was behind me."

            -Rick Majerus

            Comment


            • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
              right. but from an objective standpoint the standard you and creekster are advancing is: “they act by revelation except when they don’t, even if they’re saying they do sometimes.” prophets are purportedly specifically called and given a specific set of tools and keys to act as the sponsor of of god to men with respect to the church writ large. but, your version of revelation is also accurate with respect to pope francis, plato and robert plant: smart but fallible people who sometimes say good things. what’s the difference other than the toyota avalons and mr mac suits?
              The standard is: they act by revelation, but that revelation cannot account for all potentialities associated with personal agency in the context of mortal existence.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                right. but from an objective standpoint the standard you and creekster are advancing is: “they act by revelation except when they don’t, even if they’re saying they do sometimes.” prophets are purportedly specifically called and given a specific set of tools and keys to act as the sponsor of of god to men with respect to the church writ large. but, your version of revelation is also accurate with respect to pope francis, plato and robert plant: smart but fallible people who sometimes say good things. what’s the difference other than the toyota avalons and mr mac suits?
                TO the contrary, this is exactly why we are asked to sustain them as prophets and seers and revelators. Sometimes God does reveal and allow then to see, but not alwyas. And not, IMO, for callings very often, if at all. But, if God is going to reveal anything for the church, he will do it through them, and not you or me or the Pope Francis who no longer believes in hell. So we sustain them to that office, but we do not sustain them to receive complete, accurate and instant revelation any time it might be useful to prevent or avoid a negative consequence for any member of the church.
                PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                  but the church’s claim is not that they are exceptional or even the best men or that they’re trying really hard. it is that they are uniquely called and qualified prophets, seers and revelators with the authority and specific, technical keys to act on behalf of and speak for god.
                  Yes. It is entirely rational to make that claim yet acknowledge that they are not perfect. I am puzzled why this is such a stumbling block.
                  "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                  "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                  "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                    Yes. It is entirely rational to make that claim yet acknowledge that they are not perfect. I am puzzled why this is such a stumbling block.
                    it has nothing to do with perfection. at all. do prophets receive more/different revelation than you or i?
                    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                      the question is central to the discussion, knucklehead. what is the point of having a called and set apart mouthpiece of god on earth if we’re all playing a guessing game about the fidelity of that persons stagements and actions vis a vis god? how is that different from any other smart person?
                      It is not central, as I explained in my other post. In fact, it is of no value in looking at Bishop, although it is a fair question otherwise. The point of having a prophet is to get revelation when God decides to give it to us and to get it in an organized fashion. The 'guessing game' is the agency that we all have and accordingly we need to seek our own inspiration and make our own choices. God has never asked us (or allowed us) to abdicate our own responsibility in that regard, knucklehead.
                      PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                        but the church’s claim is not that they are exceptional or even the best men or that they’re trying really hard. it is that they are uniquely called and qualified prophets, seers and revelators with the authority and specific, technical keys to act on behalf of and speak for god.
                        True, but not to speak or act perfectly.
                        PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                          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?
                          We do believe, but only in certain circumstances:

                          1) hindsight
                          2) before Church dances
                          3) while serving missions
                          4) when asked in group meetings in front of other ward members

                          Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                          Crap like Bishop is why I’m a Mormon deist. It’s how I’ve preserved my faith.
                          If you take your time with that, and don't try and read it all at once, you will come away even more of a Mormon deist.

                          https://www.gutenberg.org/files/9662/9662-h/9662-h.htm
                          "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


                          • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                            it has nothing to do with perfection. at all. do prophets receive more/different revelation than you or i?
                            Yes. of course. Especially more than you and me. But they are not perfect. And they act imperfectly ALL THE TIME. Just liek you and me.
                            PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                              EDIT: And by the way, you are guilty of the Appeal to Orthomo fallacy.
                              Damn! You beat me to it!
                              "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                              "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                              - SeattleUte

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by creekster View Post
                                Yes. of course
                                like what?
                                Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X