Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Jeff Lebowski]

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

That is not what I am trying to do - I haven't made up anything. I am using this as a counter example to illustrate the fallacy of selecting the MTC case as some kind of privileged exception. God allows bad things to happen all the time - EVEN WHEN CHURCH LEADERS ARE INVOLVED. Why should the MTC case be any more important than two babies dying? That is a reasonable question.

[creekster]

smh. nobody is arguing that.

that is the position they must argue. If they can make mistakes, unpredictable mistakes, then this could easily have ben one.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well, sort of. They are arguing that they can make mistakes, but that they can't make THIS mistake. That is a flawed argument that defies logic. If they can make mistakes, all mistakes are on the table. Therefor, if they can't make THIS mistake, it can only be because they can't make mistakes, period. Which brings infallibility back into the picture.

EXACTLY. Thank you.

[falafel]

How is that a strawman?

Because HFN is arguing about the limits of a Prophet and Seer and you start talking about the relative power of the priesthood as used by the Prophet vs. a run-of-the-mill member of the church. HFN isn't arguing that one person's priesthood is greater than another's.

[smokymountainrain]

Well, sort of. They are arguing that they can make mistakes, but that they can't make THIS mistake. That is a flawed argument that defies logic. If they can make mistakes, all mistakes are on the table. Therefor, if they can't make THIS mistake, it can only be because they can't make mistakes, period. Which brings infallibility back into the picture.

tbh, i think the argument is that if they are special or different, they shouldn't make that mistake. in reality, while we may articulate our positions myriad ways, hence the arguments, we pretty much all feel they are just guys doing their best to fulfill a calling to the best of their ability like any YM president in southern Nevada or singles ward bishop in provo.

[creekster]

tbh, i think the argument is that if they are special or different, they shouldn't make that mistake. in reality, while we may articulate our positions myriad ways, hence the arguments, we pretty much all feel they are just guys doing their best to fulfill a calling to the best of their ability like any YM president in southern Nevada or singles ward bishop in provo.

That seems like an odd take. All of their deicison tend to be ones that affect a lot of memebrs. So, as a consequence, any mistake they might make will likely afect a lot of mebers and possibly in some bad ways.

Why are you and others willing to allow for a lot of mistakes, but not this one? How can you call this out as being so unique?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Because HFN is arguing about the limits of a Prophet and Seer and you start talking about the relative power of the priesthood as used by the Prophet vs. a run-of-the-mill member of the church. HFN isn't arguing that one person's priesthood is greater than another's.

Actually, I think that IS the logical extension of what he is implying. But I will drop it.

[myboynoah]

Well, sort of. They are arguing that they can make mistakes, but that they can't make THIS mistake. That is a flawed argument that defies logic. If they can make mistakes, all mistakes are on the table. Therefor, if they can't make THIS mistake, it can only be because they can't make mistakes, period. Which brings infallibility back into the picture.

I don't understand why THIS mistake is out of bounds. A woman in our branch told us of her brother who was raped by a scoutmaster on his first summer camp. The brother reported it, the scoutmaster denied it, and the leaders did nothing . . . . . until another boy reported being raped by the same scoutmaster a few years later. Why did those leaders call the scoutmaster? Why didn't God intervene? Are sister missionaries in the MTC somehow more important than boy scouts?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Actually, I think that IS the logical extension of what he is implying. But I will drop it.

As will I. I love all of you and despite feeling pretty strongly wish I hadn’t gotten into the fray on this one.

[old_gregg]

While I agree with JL's take on the broader issue, I agree with you here that this example is not apt. But the question for you is if you concede that the ability ot see and prophesy is not perfect, why do you expect perfection here? Bishop was a guy who appeared to be very faithful. My guess is he was a guy who TRIED to be faithful. plus, he had perfect experience for running a place like the MTC. So, on the face of it, he was an ideal candidate. Your complaint seems to be that the brethren should have KNOWN Bishop would engage in this misconduct and so never have called him. Maybe they couldnt have known. Maybe God couldnt have known (re-opening the question of omniscience raised by Wuap earlier, which has never been settled here or anywhere else). It is hard to say. But given all of the truly horrible things that God watches happen every day and does nothign to prevent, both in and out of his church, this one in and of itself doesnt stand out as something that is inexplicable to me.

those other things aren’t expressly sanctioned by men purporting to be prophets seers and revelators. you guys are missing the boat: hfn is not making any objective claims about what general authorities could or should do, just questioning where those actions fit within the church’s very real and specific claims with respect to authority.

[old_gregg]

That seems like an odd take. All of their deicison tend to be ones that affect a lot of memebrs. So, as a consequence, any mistake they might make will likely afect a lot of mebers and possibly in some bad ways.

Why are you and others willing to allow for a lot of mistakes, but not this one? How can you call this out as being so unique?

can you point to a mistake comparable to this in modern church history?

[creekster]

those other things aren’t expressly sanctioned by men purporting to be prophets seers and revelators. you guys are missing the boat: hfn is not making any objective claims about what general authorities could or should do, just questioning where those actions fit within the church’s very real and specific claims with respect to authority.

They have the authority to preside, not the authority to be infallible or omniscient.

plus, some of those things I refer to do happen in the church pursuant to calling.

[old_gregg]

tbh, i think the argument is that if they are special or different, they shouldn't make that mistake. in reality, while we may articulate our positions myriad ways, hence the arguments, we pretty much all feel they are just guys doing their best to fulfill a calling to the best of their ability like any YM president in southern Nevada or singles ward bishop in provo.

yes, the argument is not some normative prescription about what could or should have been done. it’s an indict of the authoritarian beliefs and behaviors and claims of monopoly on the narrative of truth and justice that if not expressly advanced by church leaders are tolerated by them without correction.

[smokymountainrain]

That seems like an odd take. All of their deicison tend to be ones that affect a lot of memebrs. So, as a consequence, any mistake they might make will likely afect a lot of mebers and possibly in some bad ways.

Why are you and others willing to allow for a lot of mistakes, but not this one? How can you call this out as being so unique?

i haven't mentioned this mistake. to be clear, my position is that this so-called mistake is not only not surprising but expected. if i could make that "mistake" or you could make the same "mistake", they could make it. they only difference between a given Q12 and creekster is that they are higher up on the ladder so their decisions do indeed have a great impact. sit them in a room across from a potential MTC president, they aren't any different than you or lebowski. its not a mistake - people can lie or misrepresent who they are and we shouldn't expect dudes to uncover those untruths by some magical power.

[creekster]

yes, the argument is not some normative prescription about what could or should have been done. it’s an indict of the authoritarian beliefs and behaviors and claims of monopoly on the narrative of truth and justice that if not expressly advanced by church leaders are tolerated by them without correction.

That is a completely different argument. A monopoly on the truth is not the same thing as a monopoly on correct choices.