Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Topper]

What exactly does it mean to tune into the spirit?

This sort of thing has always seemed incredibly ambiguous to me.

I think that's part of why the concept of "the spirit" resonates with people. It's like an invisible fortune teller speaking so vaguely that everything strikes a chord.

It makes people part of the club. If you get it you can wink t others who get it.

[ERCougar]

Ugh...reading through this, I see why the Buddha said that metaphysical questions were a wasteful distraction. We have a young woman--make that, at least two young women--who were abused and potentially raped by a man in authority over them, with the organization at least trying to conceal it from public disclosure and possibly trying to smear the victim once it was revealed, and we're lost in the specifics of how God speaks to us, whether by the absence of a no or by a vision or by "it's not a bad idea"? Doesn't that seem a bit...academic, and in a sort of disgusting way?

Ok, maybe not or you wouldn't be participating in it. Or maybe this is everyone's way of coping with a really ugly turn of events, given that you can't do anything about it, and you'd like to still be members of said Church. I guess that's what discussion boards are for sometimes. Really, that a leader made a mistake in choosing a MTC president (if it even was a mistake) is so far from the center of my discomfort with this whole situation that I have a hard time empathizing with the concern. People make mistakes. Duh. And people hurt each other. Also, duh. No one can control that or foresee it. We can do some things to prevent it, but I hardly put "better revelatory power" in that list. I do put transparency near the top, and there I see some major issues.

So...to my point of coming back here. One of my big concerns in the recent revelations is this potential smearing of the victim. I don't know if this has been discussed, but the leaking of the disciplinary council events (or anything else, really) to Greg Bishop is a huge ethical issue. I've read discussions among a few attorneys on facebook (no, not niku), who all have said that there is no way that this "outside counsel" would have done this without the Church's direction. If that's true, I don't think there's any way to defend that. However, given that information would have the Church's fingerprints all over it, I see that as incredibly reckless and possibly illegal (wrt adoption info), with inevitable PR consequences, which seems out of character for the Church. It's also remarkably malicious, and, as misguided as I think the Church often is, I think it's rarely if ever malicious. So I have a hard time believing it and wanted to hear the other side. Ideas on how or why that would have happened?

[ERCougar]

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 think I like this comment the best. It shows an honest discomfort with what's happened, but also an acknowledgement of why most people are bending over backwards to defend things--they like being a member of this group and believe it makes them better people. Distant events pale pretty quickly when held up against personal experiences. (Ex-mos would do really well to grasp this concept)

[jay santos]

Ugh...reading through this, I see why the Buddha said that metaphysical questions were a wasteful distraction. We have a young woman--make that, at least two young women--who were abused and potentially raped by a man in authority over them, with the organization at least trying to conceal it from public disclosure and possibly trying to smear the victim once it was revealed, and we're lost in the specifics of how God speaks to us, whether by the absence of a no or by a vision or by "it's not a bad idea"? Doesn't that seem a bit...academic, and in a sort of disgusting way?

Ok, maybe not or you wouldn't be participating it. Or maybe this is everyone's way of coping with a really ugly turn of events, given that you can't do anything about it, and you'd like to still be members of said Church. I guess that's what discussion boards are for sometimes. Really, that a leader made a mistake in choosing a MTC president (if it even was a mistake) is so far from the center of my discomfort with this whole situation that I have a hard time empathizing with the concern. People make mistakes. Duh. And people hurt each other. Also, duh. No one can control that or foresee it. We can do some things to prevent it, but I hardly put "better revelatory power" in that list. I do put transparency near the top, and there I see some major issues.

So...to my point of coming back here. One of my big concerns in the recent revelations is this potential smearing of the victim. I don't know if this has been discussed, but the leaking of the disciplinary council events to Greg Bishop is a huge ethical issue. I've read discussions among a few attorneys on facebook (no, not niku), who all have said that there is no way that this "outside counsel" would have done this without the Church's direction. If that's true, I don't think there's any way to defend that. However, given that information would have the Church's fingerprints all over it, I see that as incredibly reckless and possibly illegal (wrt adoption info), with inevitable PR consequences, which seems out of character for the Church. It's also remarkably malicious, and, as misguided as I think the Church often is, I think it's rarely if ever malicious. So I have a hard time believing it and wanted to hear the other side. Ideas on how or why that would have happened?

Agree it's a distraction and shouldn't be a discussion point. But you have it wrong on why it's being discussed. Church critics bring it up as a way to make fun of church members or otherwise prove why the church is not true. And then people jump in to argue why that's a dumb criticism.

[ERCougar]

Agree it's a distraction and shouldn't be a discussion point. But you have it wrong on why it's being discussed. Church critics bring it up as a way to make fun of church members or otherwise prove why the church is not true. And then people jump in to argue why that's a dumb criticism.

Ok, fair enough. I agree--it's a dumb criticism. I don't think most thoughtful (in my mind--haha) critics care much about that one.

EDIT: Ok, I take that back a little bit. I see what HFN/wuap/others are saying about what the Church claims, and I agree they ought to step back their claims there. It just doesn't really resonate with me. Maybe I gave up that standard a long time ago as a sort of understood Mormonspeak (like "I know that God lives").

[Walter Sobchak]

What exactly does it mean to tune into the spirit?

This sort of thing has always seemed incredibly ambiguous to me.

I think that's part of why the concept of "the spirit" resonates with people. It's like an invisible fortune teller speaking so vaguely that everything strikes a chord.

Also patriachal blessings...

[Jeff Lebowski]

So...to my point of coming back here. One of my big concerns in the recent revelations is this potential smearing of the victim. I don't know if this has been discussed, but the leaking of the disciplinary council events (or anything else, really) to Greg Bishop is a huge ethical issue. I've read discussions among a few attorneys on facebook (no, not niku), who all have said that there is no way that this "outside counsel" would have done this without the Church's direction. If that's true, I don't think there's any way to defend that. However, given that information would have the Church's fingerprints all over it, I see that as incredibly reckless and possibly illegal (wrt adoption info), with inevitable PR consequences, which seems out of character for the Church. It's also remarkably malicious, and, as misguided as I think the Church often is, I think it's rarely if ever malicious. So I have a hard time believing it and wanted to hear the other side. Ideas on how or why that would have happened?

We haven't discussed that component of the case much yet. On the surface it looks bad, but I am hoping we get more info than a few attorneys on FB.

This whole thing is horrible from start to finish.

[Donuthole]

That might be a first. I'm waiting with baited breath to read it.

Save this link, as he's going to post his response here.

On an unrelated note, I was hoping ER would return from his Eastern voyage somewhat enlightened. With a new drum, perhaps. But if his work this morning on fb and CS are any indication, it looks like he merely picked up a new mallet.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I’m sitting on a couch in Fred Meyer waiting for LDC’s snow tires to be taken off next door at Les Schwab. As I was reading two overhead lights went on making the whole area much brighter. Don’t tell me not to believe in mystical powers Cardiac!

[UVACoug]

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?

You're assuming that God wasn't OK with Bishop being called into that position. There's no way you can know that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ERCougar]

Save this link, as he's going to post his response here.

On an unrelated note, I was hoping ER would return from his Eastern voyage somewhat enlightened. With a new drum, perhaps. But if his work this morning on fb and CS are any indication, it looks like he merely picked up a new mallet.

Strange mixed metaphor aside, I'll point out that my complete FB/CS activity of the last week has consisted of: 1) some desperate attempts to capture some nice photos in what is generally a craphole of a city, 2) arguing with some attorneys that victim-smearing seems really out of character for the church, and 3) a little rant about people too easily triggered into ridiculousness. And then the above. I'll go find a new drumstick to hammer this dead horse.

[Donuthole]

Strange mixed metaphor aside, I'll point out that my complete FB/CS activity of the last week has consisted of: 1) some desperate attempts to capture some nice photos in what is generally a craphole of a city, 2) arguing with some attorneys that victim-smearing seems really out of character for the church, and 3) a little rant about people too easily triggered into ridiculousness. And then the above. I'll go find a new drumstick to hammer this dead horse.

Not a mixed metaphor for the enlightened!

bass drum diagram.jpg

[UVACoug]

So...to my point of coming back here. One of my big concerns in the recent revelations is this potential smearing of the victim. I don't know if this has been discussed, but the leaking of the disciplinary council events (or anything else, really) to Greg Bishop is a huge ethical issue. I've read discussions among a few attorneys on facebook (no, not niku), who all have said that there is no way that this "outside counsel" would have done this without the Church's direction. If that's true, I don't think there's any way to defend that. However, given that information would have the Church's fingerprints all over it, I see that as incredibly reckless and possibly illegal (wrt adoption info), with inevitable PR consequences, which seems out of character for the Church. It's also remarkably malicious, and, as misguided as I think the Church often is, I think it's rarely if ever malicious. So I have a hard time believing it and wanted to hear the other side. Ideas on how or why that would have happened?

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

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

You're assuming that God wasn't OK with Bishop being called into that position. There's no way you can know that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

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.

[ERCougar]

Not a mixed metaphor for the enlightened!

[ATTACH]8704[/ATTACH]

Sorry, I wasn't thinking along the marching band school of enlightenment.