sock puppet wrote:I have went to geekynoms to see what I have not been reading there of late. Interesting reading.
I yet think Pahoran is being inconsistent here. It rubs him wrong that Everybody Wang Chung seems less enamored with the institution and more focused on what he can do for others in his role as bishop. Everybody Wang Chung is passionate, this apparently leads him to make impassioned statements at times. He's not cut from the same roll of grey wool that so many other LDS bishops are.
Pahoran, who is quite capable of expressing his own thoughts on any subject, does not recognise your blurb as even vaguely resembling his opinions.
Pahoran takes the view that an LDS bishop may be theologically more liberal or socially less conservative than Pahoran; but cannot see how someone with such a clear opposition to the institutional Church can possibly serve in such a significant position of leadership. Nor can Pahoran see how any plausible Stake President could possibly recommend someone with
Mister Chung's views for such a position,
unless the candidate had carefully and systematically concealed his views from the Stake President.Put bluntly: either
Mister Chung is lying to the forum when he claims to be a bishop, or he lied comprehensively when he was interviewed for that position. I can see no room for any middle ground here.
sock puppet wrote:Pahoran also gets worked up that Everybody Wang Chung makes apologies for LDS Inc
Just so you know: there is no such thing as "LDS Inc." Only the most spiteful anti-Mormons refer to the Church of Jesus Christ as "LDS Inc."
sock puppet wrote:though he is not a general authority, his jurisdiction lying with one Mormon ward. Pahoran does not claim to hold position over Everybody Wang Chung in the LDS Inc hierarchical chain. His castigation of Everybody Wang Chung as unworthy to be bishop is as outside his jurisdiction, probably more so than Everybody Wang Chung apologizing for the whole of LDS not just the ward over which he presides. It seems hypocrisy does not inhibit Pahoran when he makes his self-pious screeds.
There is something fundamental you are missing.
When
Mister Chung takes it upon himself to make these apologies, he claims to be doing it "on behalf of" somebody whom he has no standing to speak "on behalf of" at any time. When I express my opinion as to
Mister Chung's fitness to serve in an important leadership role in the Church, I am speaking "on behalf of" nobody but myself.
Is that clear now?
Regards,
Pahoran