Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[tooblue]

Really good discussion the last couple of days. I'm probably repeating what has already been said, but:

For my part, the reason why this is hitting a nerve with some and not as much with others is how close home it hits. I said before that when Pinegar was my MTC president, he made reference to a pres who had seen in vision a whole host of demons ready to attack (?) the missionaries in the MTC. The only reason why they were being held back was the stripling warriors were standing in their way. The MTC was such a spiritual place for me that I didn't doubt that story in the least. I held Pinegar on a very high pedestal, as the majority of missionaries did then and most likely do now with the current president. He was a GA, if not in name then certainly in spirit. I would not have doubted in the slightest that he had seen Jesus. If we were filling out a bracket, his ranking would be just a little lower than then prophet and apostles. And so when we hear an MTC president has likely committed sexual assault more than once, it is definitely jarring.

The argument that JL and others are making is valid, up to a point. There was an apostle right after Kimball was ordained to the 12 who was exed for adultery or something like that. Reading Kimball's biography, he as well as everyone in the 12 were shocked. They had no idea. He had performed his apostolic duties for years while having an affair. They weren't omniscient enough to see what was going on underneath their noses. But stepping outside of the emotional state the vast majority of members have of the GAs, it is easy to contemplate why this would happen. If God doesn't intervene to help humanity in so many other needy causes, why would he care about a single person having an affair?

But this is how the majority of members view the church leadership. They have significant scriptural and cultural underpinnings that lead them to believe that the leadership has much more access to inspiration than the rest of the membership. I remember Brent Metcalf making a very emotional point in his Mormon stories interview. He knew a couple of people who were killed by Hoffman. A huge problem for him was that these bombings could have been prevented if the first presidency had access to inspiration. If God had told one of those leaders, 'psst. Hey, these documents are fake', Hoffman's trajectory would have been stopped cold. And even if you believe that leaders don't commune with god directly and just have similar promptings as a simple member, all it would have taken was a simple whispering of the spirit to stop them from buying the fake documents. Had they had access to this or even listened to a prompting, two people would have not been killed.

Metcalf's point really cuts through a lot of what has been discussed here. The Hoffman affair provided a clear example of how inspiration could have averted a terrible outcome for 2 people and their families. God knew the documents are fake, and certainly he knew what transpired next would be tragic. Forget about the headache Hoffman caused for the entire church. This was a point in time where a simple prompting would have avoided catastrophe for two families. If the prophet and apostles can't help prevent something as tragic as innocent people being killed when it is in their power to do so, then it shouldn't be surprising to others when they question just exactly what level of inspiration leaders have access to.

But yeah, a lot of unchecked evil goes on in this world. If god intervenes to prevent 2 people getting killed and not does nothing for others, then that would certainly make him an unjust god. But it is taught that he does favor his people, and he communes with his leaders regularly. This is dissonance that we shouldn't be surprised makes people question the practical value of priesthood authority, and the level of inspiration in the church

This notion that you, or anyone of us are somehow special and therefore we know what the majority of church members believes about the brethren is equally faulty as a belief that there is no substance or practical value to priesthood authority and the power of episodic discernment they can have concerning the church. Especially, if we faithfully accept the foundational apostolic nature of it's origins.

Regardless the circumstance and regardless whether or not inspiration was available or headed in any manner relevant to that circumstance, individual choice (agency) cannot be taken from any one individual directly associated with the circumstance.

No doubt, this is a miserable circumstance to witness, but no more so than many others I have witnessed in my life time, that differ only in terms of scale and exposure.

I accept that it is my responsibility to work past this moment in time, and remain faithful in spite of it. Because there is no where else for me to go, if I am to be honest with myself concerning the many faith promoting experiences that confirm to me this is God's church and I am happier when I am engaged in it's mission, as directed by living prophets who are not infallible, yet worthy of my esteem and sustaining vote.

[swampfrog]

This topic still interests me even though nothing is really new. I think it's one of those topics that requires visitation from time to time. I also believe writing helps me reorder my thoughts from time to time. Thanks to those that have contributed. Just offering my own perspective, though in concept not different from others, writing the words helps me clarify for myself what I have read over time, constantly rebuilding after incorporating new information and nuance. Having been recently influenced by Peterson lectures, here's the latest bunch of crap I have to offer.

The agency of man is paramount. This is in effect at individual and societal levels. If God creates a person and tells them exactly how to be, then he robs them of growth that comes from discovering how to be. In order to be wise, you must uncover the meaning of wisdom and voluntarily pursue it. You must eat the fruit, someone else cannot do the eating. Yet some part of ourselves craves exactly this, tell me how to be.

If God then creates an organization, it cannot be one that tells you how to be, it has to be one in which the likelihood of you discovering how to be is enhanced. In order to discover how to be, one must be challenged consistently and constantly in multiple ways while simultaneously providing a structure. A perfect or near perfect organization cannot accomplish this. Instead of asking why Bishop was allowed to be, maybe the right question is how do I make sure that I am never Bishop? You have to be confronted by the fact that it could be you. He is you. Part of you anyway. Maybe what you could be if the circumstances were right. If you don't think he could be you, you may already be on the path to becoming him. (Paraphrasing Peterson here.)

All things deteriorate, chaos is always at the gate, entropy weakening the walls. We can confront entropy with self will by constantly voluntarily confronting chaos and taming a piece of it and forcing order on it. By doing this our personal order grows line upon line, precept on precept. Societies (read churches) must grow the same way, they cannot be instantiated in a state of near perfection, they must reach for it and transform by voluntary choice, not by divine mandate nor guidance. If we fail to confront entropy (which means changing as new truth is discovered) then the structure decays until chaos reigns supreme. However it cannot transform instantly, people take time, organizations take time. To confront the chaos line upon line requires that the walls of order be strong enough and rebuilt each time new chaos is confronted.

A person or organization can have too much order, the walls too strong such that no one ever leaves to discover the new chaos that is emerging all around the walls. This may even be the natural inclination of persons or organizations. However, if the chaos (new information or discovery) is not regularly and voluntarily addressed, it will eventually overwhelm the person or organization. The flood will come.

I think the organization that Joseph Smith installed was once more fluid and able to incorporate many ideas as they were brought into it by new members throughout the world. Many who brought traditions and patterns of thought which influenced and shaped the building of the first walls. It may very well be today those walls are too thick and too strong and that the injunction to be in the world but not of the world is not properly being followed. We don't spend enough time seeking after the virtues still found in the world that have not been properly integrated, the process should be never-ending.

This is not God's failing, it's a natural occurrence which requires people willing to go outside the walls, learn what there is to learn and bring it back in. That takes courage, and it isn't the responsibility of those whose mandate is to not let the walls fall down while others are out discovering. You can't lay all of the blame on the leaders proclaiming there is danger out there, because there is in fact danger out there. That's why we go forth armed. Some have a greater proclivity for adventure into the chaos, some less. Neither is a problem unless one decides their way is better. And here there is some danger for the leaders to forget the reason for the walls.

And that is what I believe is the definition of prophet, seer, and revelator. They are the watchers in the guard tower whose duty is to tend the vineyard. Occasionally they must bring in the wild branches because if they don't then eventually the lord of the vineyard visits and finds everything inside is corrupted which is not a tolerable situation. One of the solutions for such corruption is destruction by fire. It's so easy to get caught up in the tending of the vineyard that they fail to see the reason for the corruption, which is stagnation. Joseph Smith wasn't enthralled with the current manifestation of the Kingdom of God, but with where it could go. He seemed frustrated by the inability to attain it.

The easy path is to leave the vineyard and never return, maybe come back close enough to the walls to throw a few barbs at those still venturing into the chaos daily. The hard path is to slowly appeal with reason to those closest to us such that the next generation of watchers will already have incorporated some of the undiscovered chaos into new designs for the walls. This however, requires sacrifice, to bring into being at a future date something not attainable today from which we will not personally benefit. That requires faith and hope.

[The_Tick]

Am I the only one who has no idea who the President was of the MTC when they were there?

Shoot...I can only name one member of the district that I was in, and that's only because he was my comp.

[smokymountainrain]

Am I the only one who has no idea who the President was of the MTC when they were there?

Shoot...I can only name one member of the district that I was in, and that's only because he was my comp.

I wouldn't have a clue who it was. the only guy I remember was my branch president who later was on that exciting show on KBYU where you watch a panel of of 4 or 5 people (usually BYU profs) study and discuss the scriptures. I used to brag to my wife that I knew him personally.

[SeattleUte]

My 13 year old son watches these comedic YouTubes called “Adam Ruins Everything.” Sometimes here I feel like I’m that guy. But like Adam, I’m only ever trying to help. I’m glad you have all had a good discussin, but if I may, I think you’re asking the wrong question in even addressing the supernatural.

Harari, the author of Homo Deus and Sapiens, takes a very expansive view of what is a “religion”. In his view, any ideology or even abstraction that brings a group of humans together to cooperate toward a value system is a religion. So, Mormonism, Communism, Capitalism, human rights, liberal humanism, fascism, corporations, legal codes, environmentalism, “dataism,” and much more are all religions. Obviously, he’s totally non-judgmental in identifying what is a religion. I don’t have a problem with this, but if to you religion has to connote belief in god, I submit this construct still helps in a discussion such as this.

Harari in Homo Deus raises the question, why are some religions more successful than others at different times? It completely depends, he submits, on which religion is best answering the big questions of the day. Capitalism, he submits, is the most successful religion of all time (Harari is a vegan who believes that the agricultural revolution was a catastrophe for the planet overall including humans). Why? Capitalism is the only religion that has figured out how to create value (and value creation not value distribution is the real economic problem).

So, how well do LDS leaders answer the big questions of the day? About value creation, sex, LGBT rights, women (arguably the most oppressed of all time), data, technology, the environment? For all this power of “revelation” why are they almost always late to social progress?

[tooblue]

My 13 year old son watches these comedic YouTubes called “Adam Ruins Everything.” Sometimes here I feel like I’m that guy. But like Adam, I’m only ever trying to help. I’m glad you have all had a good discussin, but if I may, I think you’re asking the wrong question in even addressing the supernatural.

Harari, the author of Homo Deus and Sapiens, takes a very expansive view of what is a “religion”. In his view, any ideology or even abstraction that brings a group of humans together to cooperate toward a value system is a religion. So, Mormonism, Communism, Capitalism, human rights, liberal humanism, fascism, corporations, legal codes, environmentalism, “dataism,” and much more are all religions. Obviously, he’s totally non-judgmental in identifying what is a religion. I don’t have a problem with this, but if to you religion has to connote belief in god, I submit this construct still helps in a discussion such as this.

Harari in Homo Deus raises the question, why are some religions more successful than others at different times? It completely depends, he submits, on which religion is best answering the big questions of the day. Capitalism, he submits, is the most successful religion of all time (Harari is a vegan who believes that the agricultural revolution was a catastrophe for the planet overall including humans). Why? Capitalism is the only religion that has figured out how to create value (and value creation not value distribution is the real economic problem).

So, how well do LDS leaders answer the big questions of the day? About value creation, sex, LGBT rights, women (arguably the most oppressed of all time), data, technology, the environment? For all this power of “revelation” why are they almost always late to social progress?

Having interacted with you for a long time, I am certain you are unaware of the fact that your post above is completely tone deaf.

[Uncle Ted]

So, how well do LDS leaders answer the big questions of the day? About value creation, sex, LGBT rights, women (arguably the most oppressed of all time), data, technology, the environment? For all this power of “revelation” why are they almost always late to social progress?

Man, I am still trying to figure out why God let the Israelites wonder around for 40 years in the desert when the promised land was only about a week or so away from where they started.

[tooblue]

This topic still interests me even though nothing is really new. I think it's one of those topics that requires visitation from time to time. I also believe writing helps me reorder my thoughts from time to time. Thanks to those that have contributed. Just offering my own perspective, though in concept not different from others, writing the words helps me clarify for myself what I have read over time, constantly rebuilding after incorporating new information and nuance. Having been recently influenced by Peterson lectures, here's the latest bunch of crap I have to offer.

The agency of man is paramount. This is in effect at individual and societal levels. If God creates a person and tells them exactly how to be, then he robs them of growth that comes from discovering how to be. In order to be wise, you must uncover the meaning of wisdom and voluntarily pursue it. You must eat the fruit, someone else cannot do the eating. Yet some part of ourselves craves exactly this, tell me how to be.

If God then creates an organization, it cannot be one that tells you how to be, it has to be one in which the likelihood of you discovering how to be is enhanced. In order to discover how to be, one must be challenged consistently and constantly in multiple ways while simultaneously providing a structure. A perfect or near perfect organization cannot accomplish this. Instead of asking why Bishop was allowed to be, maybe the right question is how do I make sure that I am never Bishop? You have to be confronted by the fact that it could be you. He is you. Part of you anyway. Maybe what you could be if the circumstances were right. If you don't think he could be you, you may already be on the path to becoming him. (Paraphrasing Peterson here.)

All things deteriorate, chaos is always at the gate, entropy weakening the walls. We can confront entropy with self will by constantly voluntarily confronting chaos and taming a piece of it and forcing order on it. By doing this our personal order grows line upon line, precept on precept. Societies (read churches) must grow the same way, they cannot be instantiated in a state of near perfection, they must reach for it and transform by voluntary choice, not by divine mandate nor guidance. If we fail to confront entropy (which means changing as new truth is discovered) then the structure decays until chaos reigns supreme. However it cannot transform instantly, people take time, organizations take time. To confront the chaos line upon line requires that the walls of order be strong enough and rebuilt each time new chaos is confronted.

A person or organization can have too much order, the walls too strong such that no one ever leaves to discover the new chaos that is emerging all around the walls. This may even be the natural inclination of persons or organizations. However, if the chaos (new information or discovery) is not regularly and voluntarily addressed, it will eventually overwhelm the person or organization. The flood will come.

I think the organization that Joseph Smith installed was once more fluid and able to incorporate many ideas as they were brought into it by new members throughout the world. Many who brought traditions and patterns of thought which influenced and shaped the building of the first walls. It may very well be today those walls are too thick and too strong and that the injunction to be in the world but not of the world is not properly being followed. We don't spend enough time seeking after the virtues still found in the world that have not been properly integrated, the process should be never-ending.

This is not God's failing, it's a natural occurrence which requires people willing to go outside the walls, learn what there is to learn and bring it back in. That takes courage, and it isn't the responsibility of those whose mandate is to not let the walls fall down while others are out discovering. You can't lay all of the blame on the leaders proclaiming there is danger out there, because there is in fact danger out there. That's why we go forth armed. Some have a greater proclivity for adventure into the chaos, some less. Neither is a problem unless one decides their way is better. And here there is some danger for the leaders to forget the reason for the walls.

And that is what I believe is the definition of prophet, seer, and revelator. They are the watchers in the guard tower whose duty is to tend the vineyard. Occasionally they must bring in the wild branches because if they don't then eventually the lord of the vineyard visits and finds everything inside is corrupted which is not a tolerable situation. One of the solutions for such corruption is destruction by fire. It's so easy to get caught up in the tending of the vineyard that they fail to see the reason for the corruption, which is stagnation. Joseph Smith wasn't enthralled with the current manifestation of the Kingdom of God, but with where it could go. He seemed frustrated by the inability to attain it.

The easy path is to leave the vineyard and never return, maybe come back close enough to the walls to throw a few barbs at those still venturing into the chaos daily. The hard path is to slowly appeal with reason to those closest to us such that the next generation of watchers will already have incorporated some of the undiscovered chaos into new designs for the walls. This however, requires sacrifice, to bring into being at a future date something not attainable today from which we will not personally benefit. That requires faith and hope.

The manner in which you framed the question of "becoming him," lies at the heart of why this situation hurts so deeply the way it does for some. Very insightful; very good post swamp.

[jay santos]

Am I the only one who has no idea who the President was of the MTC when they were there?

Shoot...I can only name one member of the district that I was in, and that's only because he was my comp.

Ed Pinegar was mine. I really loved him.

[SeattleUte]

Having interacted with you for a long time, I am certain you are unaware of the fact that your post above is completely tone deaf.

I have very low expectations for any supernatural abitliy on the part of the GAs, if that helps. I think as a group they are probably incapable of disappointing me.

[Northwestcoug]

Am I the only one who has no idea who the President was of the MTC when they were there?

Shoot...I can only name one member of the district that I was in, and that's only because he was my comp.

Were you there for 3 or 8 weeks? For 8 weeks I heard Pinegar on the intercom daily saying he loved me. You don't forget service like that!

[jay santos]

Were you there for 3 or 8 weeks? For 8 weeks I heard Pinegar on the intercom daily saying he loved me. You don't forget service like that!

It's cheesy, but I really did feel that he loved me, and it did make a difference. I still remember his "I just want to be a good boy." He inspired me.

[Northwestcoug]

It's cheesy, but I really did feel that he loved me, and it did make a difference. I still remember his "I just want to be a good boy." He inspired me.

Agree completely. He inspired me also.

[Donuthole]

Am I the only one who has no idea who the President was of the MTC when they were there?

Shoot...I can only name one member of the district that I was in, and that's only because he was my comp.

I've thought about this over the past week quite a bit. I believe I have a better-than-average memory, so I don't hold people to my standard when it comes to stuff like this (even though that is tempting--especially when my client is being deposed and I know the GeeDee answer and my client doesn't, and I didn't even go through whatever is being questioned. I digress.) I remember a lot of things about the MTC. Tons of things. Minute details, down to the names of the Elders in my District, my teachers and where they served their missions, my branch presidency members and what they did for a living, etc. But for the life of me, I can't remember who the MTC pres was. That said, how well someone remembers (or doesn't) remember the MTC pres is pretty irrelevant as it pertains to this discussion. And I'm certain I would remember his name if I had any sort of meaningful interactions with him during my stay there.

[MartyFunkhouser]

So, how well do LDS leaders answer the big questions of the day? About value creation, sex, LGBT rights, women (arguably the most oppressed of all time), data, technology, the environment? For all this power of “revelation” why are they almost always late to social progress?

I know the answer to this one, but I doubt you are posing this question to me.