LDS Freedom Forum

Benaishtart wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 8:54 am Almost everyone pushing for these outlandish changes like coffee and no garments are wolves not even in sheep’s clothing. You don’t even try to hide it any more your so brash about it.

I appreciate the qualifier "almost everyone," because I could certainly be in the WoW change camp but don't consider myself a wolf (I hope God doesn't consider me one, either).

I hadn't though much about the garment change idea, but if it came, I'd accept it. It would be weird to buy and wear Babylon underwear again...lol...one of my favorite parts of our garment is that I don't have to look at a bunch of mostly-naked models when shopping for underwear.

On the topic of WoW, I don't think it's outlandish at all, especially considering there is zero canonized revelation mandating the proscriptions, and the canonized revelation explicitly says it is not a commandment. In other words, Jesus Christ Himself said it isn't a commandment, and all we have to the contrary is policy-oriented. Studying the history of it is enlightening, and you'll find strong opinions on both sides coming from church leaders. It is an issue that sparked contention. Church leadership undoubtedly took it to the Lord and felt inspired to proscribe, but I do not believe that is a permanent change but is a temporary one, until the Lord feels we're prepared to live by principle and wisdom instead of strictarian rules and regulations, given that there is no canonized commandment to abstain from tea and coffee, or even low-alcohol drinks and tobacco for that matter...
In other words, I view this as fair game for "restoration" to the original intent of Section 89.

As an example of when similar things have been done in the past, we only need to look back to very recently, when President Nelson expressed a "restoration" to the name the Lord gave to the church. Jesus gave us that name when Joseph Smith was alive. Later, the church adopted other names/labels on official channels and in policy. Does that mean the apostles and First Presidency were uninspired or evil? Of course not. They were receiving inspiration applicable to the day. But, President Nelson saw a need for a restoration to the name of the church (something he and other apostles had spoken of decades ago), and now we have it in process. That's beautiful. It's right. I love it. And I feel honored to be a member of the church at this time, even as imperfect as I am.

It's obvious to me that I could be wrong, but I do believe that the teachings in Section 89 will eventually have a similar fate, being restored to their original intent, not as a commandment, but as a principle with a promise. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to obey the proscription, because it is official and came from God's authorized servants. And if it changes, I still encourage everyone to prayerfully commit to abstain, because if you do with faith, you'll be blessed, and you'll feel even more blessed doing it for the right reasons rather than only because it's forbidden.

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 7:52 amSomeone who has a history of molesting or abusing children should not be placed in to a position where they can potentially abuse and molest again, even if they have repented.

-Finrock

Are you sure about that? Man's opinion vs the word of God, once again.

Mosiah 26:31
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:16 am

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 7:52 amSomeone who has a history of molesting or abusing children should not be placed in to a position where they can potentially abuse and molest again, even if they have repented.

-Finrock

Are you sure about that? Man's opinion vs the word of God, once again.

Mosiah 26:31
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

Yeah, positive. My prime evidence is the Catholic Church Priest child abuse scandal. The Catholic Church wanted to "rehabilitate" the priests who were abusing. In many instances the abusive priests had to go through a repentance process or program that was mandated to them by their superiors. These priests said they had repented, and maybe at that time they had, but once they were returned back in to the environment where they were committing the abuse, they repeated the abuse.

A child being raped by a religious leader is exceptionally horrendous, gross, and harmful. It is wholly negligent to not take proper precautions, such as background checks, to protect these people who are vulnerable and innocent.

Look, I get what you are saying, and yes, we need to forgive people who have harmed us, but, that doesn't mean that we trust them whole cloth, especially when they have committed something so harmful as to abuse a little child:

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

-Finrock

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:23 am

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:16 am

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 7:52 amSomeone who has a history of molesting or abusing children should not be placed in to a position where they can potentially abuse and molest again, even if they have repented.

-Finrock

Are you sure about that? Man's opinion vs the word of God, once again.

Mosiah 26:31
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

Yeah, positive. My prime evidence is the Catholic Church Priest child abuse scandal. The Catholic Church wanted to "rehabilitate" the priests who were abusing. In many instances the abusive priests had to go through a repentance process or program that was mandated to them by their superiors. These priests said they had repented, and maybe at that time they had, but once they were returned back in to the environment where they were committing the abuse, they repeated the abuse.

A child being raped by a religious leader is exceptionally horrendous, gross, and harmful. It is wholly negligent to not take proper precautions, such as background checks, to protect these people who are vulnerable and innocent.

Look, I get what you are saying, and yes, we need to forgive people who have harmed us, but, that doesn't mean that we trust them whole cloth, especially when they have committed something so harmful as to abuse a little child:

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

-Finrock

In the first place we're not talking about the Catholic church. In the second place they have no authority to forgive anyone. In the third place the Lord has spoken, if we do not forgive the true penitent after they say they repented, the greater sin is on our head.

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:23 am

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:16 am

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 7:52 amSomeone who has a history of molesting or abusing children should not be placed in to a position where they can potentially abuse and molest again, even if they have repented.

-Finrock

Are you sure about that? Man's opinion vs the word of God, once again.

Mosiah 26:31
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

Yeah, positive. My prime evidence is the Catholic Church Priest child abuse scandal. The Catholic Church wanted to "rehabilitate" the priests who were abusing. In many instances the abusive priests had to go through a repentance process or program that was mandated to them by their superiors. These priests said they had repented, and maybe at that time they had, but once they were returned back in to the environment where they were committing the abuse, they repeated the abuse.

A child being raped by a religious leader is exceptionally horrendous, gross, and harmful. It is wholly negligent to not take proper precautions, such as background checks, to protect these people who are vulnerable and innocent.

Look, I get what you are saying, and yes, we need to forgive people who have harmed us, but, that doesn't mean that we trust them whole cloth, especially when they have committed something so harmful as to abuse a little child:

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

-Finrock

Another angle on this, as someone (me) who could formerly be described as Alma the Younger was described before he repented, is that people who truly repent often gain wisdom enough to know that they don't even want to be in a position that would or could lead to similar failures of their moral integrity.
Although I'm not "catholic church" level, that certainly happened for me (learning from my mistakes).
Whether or not I felt others had forgiven me, I knew that it was wisdom in the Lord for me to "pluck out my own eye," so to speak, and position myself in ways that I would not even have the temptation. For example, if I were called to be a bishop (unlikely), I would insist on some kind of glass on the door so people can see in the room. I would seek to kill the potential acts of sin before they ever had a chance to germinate.
I'm not relating an opinion on your discussion about background checks. I'm just trying to offer a third perspective.

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:16 am

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 7:52 amSomeone who has a history of molesting or abusing children should not be placed in to a position where they can potentially abuse and molest again, even if they have repented.

-Finrock

Are you sure about that? Man's opinion vs the word of God, once again.

Mosiah 26:31
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

I don't think you appreciate that both parties need to be protected. It's not about withholding forgiveness.
False accusations are not uncommon. Suppose you have a repentant child molester working in the youth programme. If someone makes an accusation against him, he's toast. Would anyone believe his denials?
Better not to put him in that position.

Between today and Millenium, there are going to be changes; so expect them. I'm sure many will be small, and some will be large. With some the effects will be obvious, with others, the effects will not be known for generations.

Some will be easy, some will make our lives easier, some will be hard, some will make our lives harder.

The restoration is a process and a lot of it has to do with what we as a people, not just as individuals, are willing to receive and what we will do with what we are given.

If God wanted a perfect civilization where everything was 100% divine he could not build it because it would be violating our agency. There will be that civilization though, it's called Zion, or even heaven. Until that time, we have this and that.

There will be changes coming, there will be changes until the end comes so we should not freak out over every little thing. The core mission is the same, enter at the gate, become born again, endure to the end line upon line. Everything else is just stuff that happens and is part of mortality, we're meant to endure these paradoxes, contradictions, and mists of darkness. This is what we signed up for and it is a feature of life, not a bug.

The things we complain about reveal quite a bit about us.

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:46 am

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:23 am

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:16 am

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 7:52 amSomeone who has a history of molesting or abusing children should not be placed in to a position where they can potentially abuse and molest again, even if they have repented.

-Finrock

Are you sure about that? Man's opinion vs the word of God, once again.

Mosiah 26:31
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

Yeah, positive. My prime evidence is the Catholic Church Priest child abuse scandal. The Catholic Church wanted to "rehabilitate" the priests who were abusing. In many instances the abusive priests had to go through a repentance process or program that was mandated to them by their superiors. These priests said they had repented, and maybe at that time they had, but once they were returned back in to the environment where they were committing the abuse, they repeated the abuse.

A child being raped by a religious leader is exceptionally horrendous, gross, and harmful. It is wholly negligent to not take proper precautions, such as background checks, to protect these people who are vulnerable and innocent.

Look, I get what you are saying, and yes, we need to forgive people who have harmed us, but, that doesn't mean that we trust them whole cloth, especially when they have committed something so harmful as to abuse a little child:

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

-Finrock

In the first place we're not talking about the Catholic church. In the second place they have no authority to forgive anyone. In the third place the Lord has spoken, if we do not forgive the true penitent after they say they repented, the greater sin is on our head.

Yeah, but the Catholic Church scandal is relevant. The same principles apply here as it does there. I have authority to forgive someone who has offended me. So do Catholics. Whether a priest can forgive someone of sins they have committed unrelated to the priest, is not relevant here.

Yes, that part is true, but, it has no bearing on whether we should do background checks or not. We can forgive and we should still do background checks to make sure someone isn't a pedophile, hasn't molested or raped a child, etc. because real life experience and data shows us that we can't just assume because someone says they are contrite that they will never offend again.

The idea of doing background checks and forgiving people is not in conflict.

-Finrock

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:55 am

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:16 am

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 7:52 amSomeone who has a history of molesting or abusing children should not be placed in to a position where they can potentially abuse and molest again, even if they have repented.

-Finrock

Are you sure about that? Man's opinion vs the word of God, once again.

Mosiah 26:31
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

I don't think you appreciate that both parties need to be protected. It's not about withholding forgiveness.
False accusations are not uncommon. Suppose you have a repentant child molester working in the youth programme. If someone makes an accusation against him, he's toast. Would anyone believe his denials?
Better not to put him in that position.

I don't think you appreciate the word of God. Why is it that men want God to bend to their justifications and whims instead of believing God's word and living by them? Justifications will not change God's word one iota.
Putting someone in a cage doesn't change who they are, it takes a change of heart and actions to forsake sin. Anyone can be in a position of authority and make mistakes, some grievous. Does this mean we put everyone in a cage because of what they might do? Again, it's guilty until proven innocent.

D&C 64:9
9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 12:31 pm

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:46 am

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:23 am

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:16 am
Are you sure about that? Man's opinion vs the word of God, once again.

Mosiah 26:31
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

Yeah, positive. My prime evidence is the Catholic Church Priest child abuse scandal. The Catholic Church wanted to "rehabilitate" the priests who were abusing. In many instances the abusive priests had to go through a repentance process or program that was mandated to them by their superiors. These priests said they had repented, and maybe at that time they had, but once they were returned back in to the environment where they were committing the abuse, they repeated the abuse.

A child being raped by a religious leader is exceptionally horrendous, gross, and harmful. It is wholly negligent to not take proper precautions, such as background checks, to protect these people who are vulnerable and innocent.

Look, I get what you are saying, and yes, we need to forgive people who have harmed us, but, that doesn't mean that we trust them whole cloth, especially when they have committed something so harmful as to abuse a little child:

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

-Finrock

In the first place we're not talking about the Catholic church. In the second place they have no authority to forgive anyone. In the third place the Lord has spoken, if we do not forgive the true penitent after they say they repented, the greater sin is on our head.

Yeah, but the Catholic Church scandal is relevant. The same principles apply here as it does there. I have authority to forgive someone who has offended me. So do Catholics. Whether a priest can forgive someone of sins they have committed unrelated to the priest, is not relevant here.

Yes, that part is true, but, it has no bearing on whether we should do background checks or not. We can forgive and we should still do background checks to make sure someone isn't a pedophile, hasn't molested or raped a child, etc. because real life experience and data shows us that we can't just assume because someone says they are contrite that they will never offend again.

The idea of doing background checks and forgiving people is not in conflict.

-Finrock

Do you really believe background checks are something to take to the bank? What if someone was accused of bad doing and now has a flawed record, even though they were completely innocent. So now this person is treated like dross, can't get a calling and is shunned for the rest of his life. Is this the right way of doing things? Background checks can condemn the very innocent. Police are famous for arresting people under false and bogus charges and you think this is fair and accurate? The thought of screwing over someone's life based on background checks is repulsive.

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 1:13 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:55 am

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:16 am

Finrock wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 7:52 amSomeone who has a history of molesting or abusing children should not be placed in to a position where they can potentially abuse and molest again, even if they have repented.

-Finrock

Are you sure about that? Man's opinion vs the word of God, once again.

Mosiah 26:31
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

I don't think you appreciate that both parties need to be protected. It's not about withholding forgiveness.
False accusations are not uncommon. Suppose you have a repentant child molester working in the youth programme. If someone makes an accusation against him, he's toast. Would anyone believe his denials?
Better not to put him in that position.

I don't think you appreciate the word of God. Why is it that men want God to bend to their justifications and whims instead of believing God's word and living by them? Justifications will not change God's word one iota.
Putting someone in a cage doesn't change who they are, it takes a change of heart and actions to forsake sin. Anyone can be in a position of authority and make mistakes, some grievous. Does this mean we put everyone in a cage because of what they might do? Again, it's guilty until proven innocent.

D&C 64:9
9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

It's nothing to do with not forgiving someone, and if you think it is then I have seriously underestimated your capacity to comprehend something which the rest of us would describe as patently obvious.

Would you take an alcoholic and sit him in a bar and put his favourite tipple in front of him?
Equally, why put someone (a convicted paedophile) who has a devastating weakness (for him and any victim) in a position in which he could be unecessarily tempted?

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 1:45 pm

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 1:13 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:55 am

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 10:16 am
Are you sure about that? Man's opinion vs the word of God, once again.

Mosiah 26:31
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

I don't think you appreciate that both parties need to be protected. It's not about withholding forgiveness.
False accusations are not uncommon. Suppose you have a repentant child molester working in the youth programme. If someone makes an accusation against him, he's toast. Would anyone believe his denials?
Better not to put him in that position.

I don't think you appreciate the word of God. Why is it that men want God to bend to their justifications and whims instead of believing God's word and living by them? Justifications will not change God's word one iota.
Putting someone in a cage doesn't change who they are, it takes a change of heart and actions to forsake sin. Anyone can be in a position of authority and make mistakes, some grievous. Does this mean we put everyone in a cage because of what they might do? Again, it's guilty until proven innocent.

D&C 64:9
9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

It's nothing to do with not forgiving someone, and if you think it is then I have seriously underestimated your capacity to comprehend something which the rest of us would describe as patently obvious.

Would you take an alcoholic and sit him in a bar and put his favourite tipple in front of him?
Equally, why put someone (a convicted paedophile) who has a devastating weakness (for him and any victim) in a position in which he could be unecessarily tempted?

You tell me. You're the one telling the story. And I enjoy not being one of the sheeple. I enjoy thinking for myself.
Furthermore, you are very near to breaking one of the forum rules.

Dusty52 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:00 am Having background checks is a basic safeguarding issue, don't you get that??'

An even more basic approach would be not to allow priesthood holders to be alone quizzing girls and boys about sex.

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:01 pm

Dusty52 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:00 am Having background checks is a basic safeguarding issue, don't you get that??'

An even more basic approach would be not to allow priesthood holders to be alone quizzing girls and boys about sex.

This covers each and every one of us males. What's this church coming to? What's next, female Bishops and Stake Presidents? Maybe women don't need background checks because they are perfect in every way.

I'm a woman and I've had two background checks. One was before I volunteered at my grandchild's school, and the other was before getting my conceal carry permit. My husband routinely has background checks done on people applying to lease property from him, men and women alike. It has nothing to do with being a priesthood holder or a woman. Two-deep should be the rule with adults questioning minors, gender notwithstanding.

You know, the interesting thing is - the church has been practicing the "two deep" policy on counting tithing and missionary companionships for years. So one could say, the church is more interested in keeping honesty with money, and less interested in protecting children/women/men from abuse and temptation. Harsh reality...

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:01 pm

Dusty52 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:00 am Having background checks is a basic safeguarding issue, don't you get that??'

An even more basic approach would be not to allow priesthood holders to be alone quizzing girls and boys about sex.

This covers each and every one of us males. What's this church coming to? What's next, female Bishops and Stake Presidents? Maybe women don't need background checks because they are perfect in every way.

You have a real issue with woman which needs to be sorted out!

Dusty52 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:28 pm

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:01 pm

Dusty52 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:00 am Having background checks is a basic safeguarding issue, don't you get that??'

An even more basic approach would be not to allow priesthood holders to be alone quizzing girls and boys about sex.

This covers each and every one of us males. What's this church coming to? What's next, female Bishops and Stake Presidents? Maybe women don't need background checks because they are perfect in every way.

You have a real issue with woman which needs to be sorted out!

This is why I'm only married to one. And she's a sweet heart. But I have a real issue with women. Funny.

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:01 pm

Dusty52 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:00 am Having background checks is a basic safeguarding issue, don't you get that??'

An even more basic approach would be not to allow priesthood holders to be alone quizzing girls and boys about sex.

This covers each and every one of us males. What's this church coming to? What's next, female Bishops and Stake Presidents? Maybe women don't need background checks because they are perfect in every way.

The concept of forced/voluntary confessionals to a Bishop to receive forgiveness, is a dubious "doctrine" to say the least.

Obviously background checks become really problematic when under the inspiration of the spirit a call is extended to a past perpetrator who fails a background check. Even more embarrassing is when that call is a bishop and up.

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 3:44 pm

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:01 pm

Dusty52 wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:00 am Having background checks is a basic safeguarding issue, don't you get that??'

An even more basic approach would be not to allow priesthood holders to be alone quizzing girls and boys about sex.

This covers each and every one of us males. What's this church coming to? What's next, female Bishops and Stake Presidents? Maybe women don't need background checks because they are perfect in every way.

The concept of forced/voluntary confessionals to a Bishop to receive forgiveness, is a dubious "doctrine" to say the least.

Obviously background checks become really problematic when under the inspiration of the spirit a call is extended to a past perpetrator who fails a background check. Even more embarrassing is when that call is a bishop and up.

Christ called Judas to be an apostle knowing full well he was a bad apple. Should Christ have avoided giving that call?
I know that town drunks have been called as Bishops. Is God a respecter of persons?

Another possible change as the leaders of the church want to distance themselves from is using the word "Mormon "
So I am expecting a rebranding of the Book of Mormon, ridiculous

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 4:18 pm

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 3:44 pm

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:01 pm

An even more basic approach would be not to allow priesthood holders to be alone quizzing girls and boys about sex.

This covers each and every one of us males. What's this church coming to? What's next, female Bishops and Stake Presidents? Maybe women don't need background checks because they are perfect in every way.

The concept of forced/voluntary confessionals to a Bishop to receive forgiveness, is a dubious "doctrine" to say the least.

Obviously background checks become really problematic when under the inspiration of the spirit a call is extended to a past perpetrator who fails a background check. Even more embarrassing is when that call is a bishop and up.

Christ called Judas to be an apostle knowing full well he was a bad apple. Should Christ have avoided giving that call?
I know that town drunks have been called as Bishops. Is God a respecter of persons?

Come on RR. Your analogy is clumsy. Judas was called as a bad apple full knowing he would do what bad apples do. Also what does anything have to do with calling a drunk as bishop?

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 5:54 pm

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 4:18 pm

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 3:44 pm

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 2:17 pm
This covers each and every one of us males. What's this church coming to? What's next, female Bishops and Stake Presidents? Maybe women don't need background checks because they are perfect in every way.

The concept of forced/voluntary confessionals to a Bishop to receive forgiveness, is a dubious "doctrine" to say the least.

Obviously background checks become really problematic when under the inspiration of the spirit a call is extended to a past perpetrator who fails a background check. Even more embarrassing is when that call is a bishop and up.

Christ called Judas to be an apostle knowing full well he was a bad apple. Should Christ have avoided giving that call?
I know that town drunks have been called as Bishops. Is God a respecter of persons?

Come on RR. Your analogy is clumsy. Judas was called as a bad apple full knowing he would do what bad apples do. Also what does anything have to do with calling a drunk as bishop? Perhaps a background check would have halted him from becoming Bishop. Who knows, he might have done something stupid, right?

My comments make about as much sense as doing background checks on clergy. Should Christ have done a background check on Judas?
Maybe God should have had a background check when he created Eve. Wasn't she running around all over the place buck naked? Heaven forbid if a woman is seen naked. And God is a man, isn't he? I mean, just how far should we take this topic with any kind of sense attached?

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 6:16 pm
My comments make about as much sense as doing background checks on clergy. Should Christ have done a background check on Judas?
Maybe God should have had a background check when he created Eve. Wasn't she running around all over the place buck naked? Heaven forbid if a woman is seen naked. And God is a man, isn't he? I mean, just how far should we take this topic with any kind of sense attached?

Holy moly man. No Jesus did not need to do a background check on Judas. He knew his background,
his heart, and what he was going to do. God also didn't need to do a background check on Eve, he knew perfectly her background.

The purpose of a background check is to learn about or verify someone's history. In cases in which the background is perfectly known, a background check is not necessary.

I'm not big on background checks because they will make TBMs more comfortable with a bishop discussing masturbation alone with their children. The false sense of security is a legitimate danger of background checks.

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 7:36 pm

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑March 7th, 2019, 6:16 pm
My comments make about as much sense as doing background checks on clergy. Should Christ have done a background check on Judas?
Maybe God should have had a background check when he created Eve. Wasn't she running around all over the place buck naked? Heaven forbid if a woman is seen naked. And God is a man, isn't he? I mean, just how far should we take this topic with any kind of sense attached?

Holy moly man. No Jesus did not need to do a background check on Judas. He knew his background,
his heart, and what he was going to do. God also didn't need to do a background check on Eve, he knew perfectly her background.

The purpose of a background check is to learn about or verify someone's history. In cases in which the background is perfectly known, a background check is not necessary.

I'm not big on background checks because they will make TBMs more comfortable with a bishop discussing masturbation alone with their children. The false sense of security is a legitimate danger of background checks.

Read my post again. I said nothing about Eve having a background check done on her. It was God I was referring to.
Everybody sins one way or another. It just stirs my blood when people can point their finger at another sinner thinking that they, somehow, will escape paying for their own sins. Some people frequent porno shops and yet will say, "look there's a sinner." Others cuss like a mad delinquent, but will find fault with someone else.
I love the saying Christ said to those ready to stone a sinner. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." I believe this is as applicable today as it was then.