Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[tooblue]

Then what is your distinction? I asked you to flesh it out above and you, so far, have not responded. If you think this distinction you are drawing makes any sense, then delineate its scope and limits. I don't think you can, really.

I'd like an answer to this question as well: where is the threshold? How far does funk's and all others notion of discernment extend?

[Moliere]

For those who are outraged, can I ask what is the appropriate level of risk the church, or for that matter any organization, can assume when allowing or calling people to positions of authority? Not even taking into account the notion of discernment, where is the threshold?

Are you saying that any person, who can be perceived as a risk, should never be permitted to be in a position of authority over vulnerable groups? For example, as a comparator, are you saying anyone who was abused as a child can never be permitted to work with children? There are studies to potentially back up such actions:

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/24/s...-remedies.html



Is that how far your ideas about who can and who cannot be called should go?

Yes and no. Some people truly should never be called into certain positions such as people with known sexual predator issues, even f they were a long time ago. The church had always, AFAIK, had a policy in these same lines.

Some people that are risks can be called to those positions with adequate safeguards in place. The church seems to be adding more and more safeguards (CO-teachers, adult present in ecclesiastical interviews if requested, etc.) as necessary.

I for one am surprised there aren’t more issues like the one being discussed, especially given how much access was given to one on one situations in the past. That’s a testament to church members being overall good people. The LDS situation is nothing like the catholic issues and the LDS church gets it right most of the time.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

HFN, do you believe that prophets are infallible? Yes or no.

No I do not believe them to be infallible.

Should I expect a time when they say this calling was made by an imperfect man who did not receive/ask for perfect enlightenment from God? Is there a standard for times where God allows them to have revelation vs the times He allows them to operate in their infallibility? Do our leaders ever act under revelation anymore?

[MartyFunkhouser]

seems like you are, in fact, expecting perfection when they are in the business of extending callings.

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.

[Moliere]

Oh, no you don't. This is what you said:



EDIT: And by the way, you are guilty of the Appeal to Orthomo fallacy.

To explain, again. It’s the issue that doesn’t allow me to believe how I used to believe. My faith has evolved into Mormon deism and it’s stuff like this that prevents me from going back.

[creekster]

I for one am surprised there aren’t more issues like the one being discussed, especially given how much access was given to one on one situations in the past. That’s a testament to church members being overall good people. The LDS situation is nothing like the catholic issues and the LDS church gets it right most of the time.

That's funny. They call Bishop and it shows they are not inspired, ever. The incidence of improper conduct is surprisingly low and it shows only that they are good people, but apparently not that the callings might often be inspired.

[creekster]

No I do not believe them to be infallible.

Should I expect a time when they say this calling was made by an imperfect man who did not receive/ask for perfect enlightenment from God? Is there a standard for times where God allows them to have revelation vs the times He allows them to operate in their infallibility? Do our leaders ever act under revelation anymore?

Perfect enlightenment? WHo ever got that on this earth besides Jesus and even for him near or at the end of his life?

[tooblue]

Yes and no. Some people truly should never be called into certain positions such as people with known sexual predator issues, even f they were a long time ago. The church had always, AFAIK, had a policy in these same lines.

Some people that are risks can be called to those positions with adequate safeguards in place. The church seems to be adding more and more safeguards (CO-teachers, adult present in ecclesiastical interviews if requested, etc.) as necessary.

I for one am surprised there aren’t more issues like the one being discussed, especially given how much access was given to one on one situations in the past. That’s a testament to church members being overall good people. The LDS situation is nothing like the catholic issues and the LDS church gets it right most of the time.

So, they should have the power to discern who the "one-third" is? No exceptions? Of course we know that is impossible for even trained psychologists to do—to identify the one third. So, really, what would need to happen is that no person who has ever been abused can EVER be allowed to work with children.

Are you aware that Scouting organizations in North America actually tried to do something similar, except not through discernment, but through a series of interviews, where individuals were asked very pointed questions. Legally, they were stopped: why is that, do you think?

[old_gregg]

Do our leaders ever act under revelation anymore?

this is the correct question. asking if someone ever does something is not the same as implying that they always do. it has nothing to do with fallibility, it has everything to do with purported revelation and be standard by which we take that as such.

[Jeff Lebowski]

No I do not believe them to be infallible.

Should I expect a time when they say this calling was made by an imperfect man who did not receive/ask for perfect enlightenment from God? Is there a standard for times where God allows them to have revelation vs the times He allows them to operate in their infallibility? Do our leaders ever act under revelation anymore?

If you accept fallibility, then you can't insist that this (or any) situation should be an exception. You can't have it both ways.

If there is such a standard, it would be known only to God.

Yes, I believe leaders act under revelation. I have never believed that the revelation process is perfect. Nor have I ever claimed to understand why God sometimes allows horrible things to happen. But that has been the case since the beginning of time.

[creekster]

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.

So you now abandon your position that there is some important distinction between bad things from callings and just bad things happening. Good choice, I think.

Keeping those guilty of past sexual assault from many/most/all callings is, of course, a completely different issue and one that I don't think anyone here is really arguing with you about. But framing it as those who have committed a sexual assault is different than what you said before. It is much clearer and makes more sense, IMO.

[tooblue]

this is the correct question. asking if someone ever does something is not the same as implying that they always do. it has nothing to do with fallibility, it has everything to do with purported revelation and be standard by which we take that as such.

It also has everything to do with agency.

[Jeff Lebowski]

this is the correct question. asking if someone ever does something is not the same as implying that they always do. it has nothing to do with fallibility, it has everything to do with purported revelation and be standard by which we take that as such.

That is a fair question, but it always has and always will be a matter of faith.

[creekster]

this is the correct question. asking if someone ever does something is not the same as implying that they always do. it has nothing to do with fallibility, it has everything to do with purported revelation and be standard by which we take that as such.

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.

[old_gregg]

That is a fair question, but it always has and always will be a matter of faith.

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?