Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Topper]

This argument seems to run like this. They hold the imperfect power of discernment except when they don't. Members can discern when they have discernment except when members can't. IOW, their discerning power is limited and imperfect, and imperfect members are left to discern imperfectly when these "special witnesses" are exercising good discernment and to forgive when they are not.

That's not a lot to go on in terms of relying upon anything they are doing.

[falafel]

This is from the Daily Herald article:

“By taking no action against Bishop from 1987 to the present, the Church has protected this self-proclaimed sexual predator, while re-victimizing Denson again and again,” the lawsuit reads.

I don't want to minimize Denson's claims or what she has gone through, but I'm having a hard time understanding the bolded portion here. Can anyone explain it to me?

[Topper]

This is from the Daily Herald article:



I don't want to minimize Denson's claims or what she has gone through, but I'm having a hard time understanding the bolded portion here. Can anyone explain it to me?

Speculation: By her mentally revisiting the lack of punishment against him, she is revictimized each time it is discussed. It's iffy to me too.

[Moliere]

This is from the Daily Herald article:



I don't want to minimize Denson's claims or what she has gone through, but I'm having a hard time understanding the bolded portion here. Can anyone explain it to me?

I would but for you to understand I’d have to use little words and my post would then be so long that you’d probably just tl;dr it, so I won’t.

[falafel]

I would but for you to understand I’d have to use little words and my post would then be so long that you’d probably just tl;dr it, so I won’t.

tl;dr

[smokymountainrain]

Yes, that's true. They don't, except for areas where they hold keys that I don't hold. That's what it means for them to be Ps, Ss and Rs.

so as to my own sphere of responsibility (me, my family, etc.) They have no more right to inspiration/revelation than I do (and one might even argue less in some respects). That is how I took his comment. If you take it to mean that I can also receive revelation for the church, then I disagree with him. As I have said several times here, the prophets role is to receive guidance for the church and ew sustain him to that office for that purpose, acknowledging that we do not have that role or authority or ability.

this is essentially the same thing I said earlier in the thread - they are the same as you and me, but they are inspired as it pertains to their own callings (just as we are) which are more significant in terms of stewardship than yours or mine - and it is that stewardship which sets them apart.

[Commando]

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.

Dude even Yoda could not discern Sidious.

[wuapinmon]

Dude even Yoda could not discern Sidious.

Are you trying to say that Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

[Pelado]

Dude even Yoda could not discern Sidious.

Spoiler for Fragile sensitivities of fans:

Star Wars isn't real.

[Commando]

Are you trying to say that Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

Nah of course he can.

[Commando]

Spoiler for Fragile sensitivities of fans:

Star Wars isn't real.

lol stop. I guess what I'm saying is that there are a million intervening, plausible reasons for Bishop not getting snagged before or even after he did his deeds. I think most likely is that free agency vs discernment doesn't always work out to bail out the Church's good name.

[wuapinmon]

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.

See the quoted posted below.

[she's] coming less from the worried-about-a-priesthood-leader-accusing/belittling-someone perspective than the self-loathing-based-on-that-comment perspective of someone without a complete understanding of things, or, say, the smarts that most of us have. Or, someone who was told no sex no sex no sex no sex no sex no sex for so long, that even after marriage, it [takes years to change that feeling]. Someone like that, once raped, might believe that they had something to do with it, even if non-consensual, and start loathing themselves.

That's the greater worry for her. Not a scarlet letter that others can see, but the one that only the victim can see, carried due to a comment like that, even if well intended.

Now, regarding a normal conversation.

First, deontological libertarian grossly simplified, means that this life is a test to see if you like evil or good, and like being free to choose or not.

Second, theodicy, is an attempt to understand why God permits evil to exist at all. Mormons call it part of his plan, saying it would be frustrated without it, but that's not an answer, it's a side-stepping of the question, though not quite begging it. Why allow evil to exist? Well, if we have free will, then God must allow it, right? It seems simple to Mormons. But, if we have free will, can God impinge upon that free will without altering it? If he does so, is it still truly free will? Also, if he is omniscient, how can we be free to do anything at all if he ever intervenes in this world through Providence? Also, if Paul has promised us that we will never be tempted beyond our capacity to resist (1 Corinthians 10:13), and if God is omniscient, and God is Provident, then God knows exactly and precisely when we're going to sin, so why then does he ever let us sin, ergo, why is there any evil in this world at all? That's the problem of theodicy, generally.

Third, pantheism. Everything around you is your reality. Everything around you, including you, is governed by laws of nature. Nature (meaning the physical world, not trees and energy bar wrappers) is reality and Nature is law. Nature cannot be escaped. It is always now (in Time). Nature is everywhere and it is also right now. Nature is God. God is Everywhere, He is Universal, Immanent (meaning made of the physical world), and All-Encompassing. So, if evil exists, it too is a manifestation of the all-encompassing immanence of God. Shit Happens? Deus volte!

Or "The history of modern epistemology from Descartes, Hume, and Kant, to Popper and Lorenz, has--it seems to me--made clear that the fact of any reality at all independent of our consciousness can be accepted only as an act of trust."
Hans Kung, Eternal Life. Doubleday: New York, 1984. (page 227).

Epistemology is the study of what differentiates justified belief from opinion...note that "justified" modifier on belief. I can believe that the bird I saw today on the lawn was a European Starling. I take note of its size, shape, color, plumage, call, bill length, and other field marks. I compare it to field guides with drawings and photographs of other people's observations of the bird recognized as a European Starling. Since European Starlings were released in New York in the 19th Century, they have spread across the entirety of North America, and there are breeding populations in all 49 States on the mainland, and in every county in South Carolina. I have seen European Starlings with other, more experienced birders in the past, who have helped me recognize the bird I saw as a European Starling. I can claim, to have a justified belief that the bird I saw around 9:20AM on the lawn in front of Davidson Hall was a European Starling. I might have an opinion that the other Starlings think he's "cheap," but that cannot be justified.

Now, the Kung quote calls upon the great work done by "modern" philosophers like René Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), David Hume, Immanuel Kant, etc. to accept anything that we might call 'reality' that is independent of our consciousness, meaning outside of the workings of our brain, only as an act of trust. Meaning, to me at least, and I think to Kung, that our senses perceive things, but we could be fooled, so we have to negotiate some sort of trust with the outside world, in order to function within it, and not go mad wondering--as my students put it sometimes--if The Matrix is a documentary. I put that quote up there drawing a parallel about whether or not we can likewise just negotiate some sort of trust with the existence of God, since there is no proof whatsoever that he exists, just as there isn't really any proof of an external world beyond my perception of it (or if you're a Berkleyian like tooblue seems to be, it's perception of and reaction to me).

And, I never said, as JeffLebowski was offended on your behalf about, that you weren't intelligent. You're falawful. I could never stop loving you.

[creekster]

BKP gave a talk not too long before he passed where he made the same argument you are making. But I can't find it.

Was it this one where he gave the following statements?

https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...welve?lang=eng

Shortly after the death of President Gordon B. Hinckley, the 14 men, Apostles, who had had conferred upon them the keys of the kingdom, gathered together in the upper room of the temple in order to reorganize the First Presidency of the Church. There was no question about what would be done, no hesitancy. We knew that the senior Apostle was the President of the Church. And in that sacred meeting, Thomas Spencer Monson was sustained by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as the President of the Church. He nominated and named his counselors. They likewise were sustained, and they were each ordained and given authority. President Monson was specifically given the authority to exercise all of the priesthood keys of authority. Now, as the scriptures provide, he is the only man on the earth who has the right to exercise all of the keys. But we all hold them as Apostles. There is one man among us called and ordained, and he becomes the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Already he was and had been sustained for years as a prophet, seer, and revelator.

The present Twelve are very ordinary people. They are not, as the original Twelve were not, spectacular individually, but collectively the Twelve are a power.

We come from a variety of occupations. We are scientists, lawyers, teachers.

Elder Nelson was a pioneer heart surgeon. He performed thousands of surgical operations. He told me he gave every heart surgery patient a lifetime guarantee on his work.

Several in this Quorum were military men—a sailor, marines, pilots.

They have held various positions in the Church: home teachers, teachers, missionaries, quorum presidents, bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, and of most importance, husbands and fathers.

They all are students and teachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. What unites us is our love of the Savior and His Father’s children and our witness that He stands at the head of the Church.

Almost to a man, the Twelve come from humble beginnings, as it was when He was here. The living Twelve are welded together in the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ. When the call came, each has put down his nets, so to speak, and followed the Lord.

While the Apostles hold all of the priesthood keys, all leaders and members alike may receive personal revelation. Indeed, they are expected to seek it through prayer and to act on it by faith.

“For through him we … have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”25

[old_gregg]

See the quoted posted below.



Now, regarding a normal conversation.

First, deontological libertarian grossly simplified, means that this life is a test to see if you like evil or good, and like being free to choose or not.

Second, theodicy, is an attempt to understand why God permits evil to exist at all. Mormons call it part of his plan, saying it would be frustrated without it, but that's not an answer, it's a side-stepping of the question, though not quite begging it. Why allow evil to exist. Well, if we have free will, then God must allow it, right? It seems simple to Mormons. But, if we have free will, can God impinge upon that free will without altering it? If he does so, does is it still truly free will? Also, if he is omniscient, how can we be free to do anything at all if ever intervenes in this world through Providence? Also, if Paul has promised us that we will never be tempted beyond our capacity to resist (1 Corinthians 10:13), and if God is omniscient, and God is Provident, then God knows exactly and precisely when we're going to sin, so why then does ever let us sin, ergo, why is there any evil in this world at all? That's the problem of theodicy, generally.

Third, pantheism. Everything around you is your reality. Everything around you, including you, is governed by laws of nature. Nature (meaning the physical world, not trees and energy bar wrappers) is reality and Nature is law. Nature cannot be escaped. It is always now (in Time). Nature is everywhere and it is also right now. Nature is God. God is Everywhere, He is Universal, Immanent (meaning made of the physical world), and All-Encompassing. So, if evil exists, it too is a manifestation of the all-encompassing immanence of God. Shit Happens? Deus volte!

Or "The history of modern epistemology from Descartes, Hume, and Kant, to Popper and Lorenz, has--it seems to me--made clear that the fact of any reality at all independent of our consciousness can be accepted only as an act of trust."
Hans Kung, Eternal Life. Doubleday: New York, 1984. (page 227).

Epistemology is the study of what differentiates justified belief from opinion...note that "justified" modifier on belief. I can believe that the bird I saw today on the lawn was a European Starling. I take note of its size, shape, color, plumage, call, bill length, and other field marks. I compare it to field guides with drawings and photographs of other people's observations of the bird recognized as a European Starling. Since European Starlings were released in New York in the 19th Century, they have spread across the entirety of North America, and there are breeding populations in all 49 States on the mainland, and in every county in South Carolina. I have seen European Starlings with other, more experienced birders in the past, who have helped me recognize the bird I saw as a European Starling. I can claim, to have a justified belief that the bird I saw around 9:20AM on the lawn in front of Davidson Hall was a European Starling. I might have an opinion that the other Starlings think he's "cheap," but that cannot be justified.

Now, the Kung quote calls upon the great work done by "modern" philosophers like René Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), David Hume, Immanuel Kant, etc. to accept anything that we might call 'reality' that is independent of our consciousness, meaning outside of the workings of our brain, only as an act of trust. Meaning, to me at least, and I think to Kung, that our senses perceive things, but we could be fooled, so we have to negotiate some sort of trust with the outside world, in order to function within it, and not go mad wondering--as my students put it sometimes--if The Matrix is a documentary. I put that quote up there drawing a parallel about whether or not we can likewise just negotiate some sort of trust with the existence of God, since there is no proof whatsoever that he exists, just as there isn't really any proof of an external world beyond my perception of it (or if you're a Berkleyian like tooblue seems to be, it's perception of and reaction to me).

And, I never said, as JeffLebowski was offended on your behalf about, that you weren't intelligent. You're falawful. I could never stop loving you.

welcome to the desert of the real

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

I found the BKP talk I was searching for:

https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...hurch?lang=eng

Speaking of his calling to be a GA:

For a long time, something else puzzled me. Forty-six years ago I was a 37-year-old seminary supervisor. My Church calling was as an assistant teacher in a class in the Lindon Ward.

To my great surprise, I was called to meet with President David O. McKay. He took both of my hands in his and called me to be one of the General Authorities, an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

....

I did the best I could. I bore my testimony the same as I might have in a fast and testimony meeting in my ward. To my surprise, the Brethren of the Presidency seemed pleased and proceeded to confer the office upon me.

That puzzled me greatly, for I had supposed that someone called to such an office would have an unusual, different, and greatly enlarged testimony and spiritual power.

It puzzled me for a long time until finally I could see that I already had what was required: an abiding testimony in my heart of the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith, that we have a Heavenly Father, and that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer. I may not have known all about it, but I did have a testimony, and I was willing to learn.

As General Authorities of the Church, we are just the same as you are, and you are just the same as we are. You have the same access to the powers of revelation for your families and for your work and for your callings as we do.

It is also true that there is an order to things in the Church. When you are called to an office, you then receive revelation that belongs to that office that would not be given to others.

No member of the Church is esteemed by the Lord as more or less than any other. It just does not work that way! Remember, He is a father—our Father. The Lord is “no respecter of persons.”

We are not worth more to the onrolling of the Lord’s work than were Brother and Sister Toutai Paletu‘a in Nuku‘alofa, Tonga; or Brother and Sister Carlos Cifuentes in Santiago, Chile; or Brother and Sister Peter Dalebout in the Netherlands; or Brother and Sister Tatsui Sato of Japan; or hundreds of others I have met while traveling about the world. It just does not work that way.