Elder Gilbert Interview with Peggy Fletcher Stack

[Limnor]

I just had a “Sixth Sense” moment. That’s a fair general caution that could apply to all of us. The hard part is checking our own priors.

There is a delicate balance (bias tainted) that seems to work for most situations. If one were to focus entirely on checking your priors you would be forever trapped in decision paralysis.

That’s fair—what I want to avoid is hypocrisy. Asking someone else to evaluate their bias without evaluating your own seems wrong. I think there is a way to do that without suspending judgment forever—you just adjust confidence based on evidence.

[malkie]

I just had a “Sixth Sense” moment. That’s a fair general caution that could apply to all of us. The hard part is checking our own priors.

There is a delicate balance (bias tainted) that seems to work for most situations. If one were to focus entirely on checking your priors you would be forever trapped in decision paralysis.

As I tried to solve a production-blocking problem, devise a solution, and satisfy myself that the solution worked and didn't make the situation worse, I was racked with doubts as it was completely new territory for me. My manager's derisive comment was: analysis paralysis. And she wasn't far off.

[Limnor]

There is a delicate balance (bias tainted) that seems to work for most situations. If one were to focus entirely on checking your priors you would be forever trapped in decision paralysis.

As I tried to solve a production-blocking problem, devise a solution, and satisfy myself that the solution worked and didn't make the situation worse, I was racked with doubts as it was completely new territory for me. My manager's derisive comment was: analysis paralysis. And she wasn't far off.

We use the same term in intel.

[MG 2.0]

[*]did Mormon god not anticipate that Joseph's character could be used in the future to discredit the restoration?[/list]

This is actually an interesting question. One I've thought about a lot. I often wonder why God couldn't have chosen someone polished instead of a "rough stone"...a prophet in the rough.

In the scriptures we read that God "has called the weak things of the world to shame the things that are strong". Why? Moses had his anger issues. David committed sexual sin and abused power. Peter denied the Christ. Yet God, if you believe in Him, called these people and many others to do His work. It appears that divine calling is not a 'reward' for already perfected character but an act of grace towards frail people who God then disciplines, corrects, and strengthens over time.

Joseph Smith was a young, obscure, poorly educated, and socially suspect young man. Some of the early revelations coming through Joseph Smith himself speak of God showing "forth His wisdom through the weak things of the earth".

By calling on the weak things of the world it may well be that God accomplishes at least three things, maybe more.

1. The servant has reason to be humble and contrite before God.
2. Followers are more focused on God rather than a perfect leader who may not have a whole lot in common with them.
3. The hearts of observers and possible disciples (of Jesus Christ) must decide whether or not to reject the message because of the messenger.

Someone who stumbles over Joseph's debts (Kirtland Bank, Nauvoo House, etc.), temperament (many examples), and youthful missteps (which Joseph ultimately admitted to) are reenacting, if you will, the same stumbling blocks that many in scripture had over Moses' speech and missteps, David's sins, or Peter's cowardice. The test becomes whether one can separate the message from the messenger. In other words, does the message carry forth the 'fruit' that leads one closer to God and His Kingdom.

That is an individual decision based on personal temperament, life experience, and other factors...including humility. Why do I say that? My experience has been that there are many who look for the mote/beam in another's eye. My question would be, "Who are you to cast the stone?"

Did Joseph deny his own weaknesses? Did he continually beseech the will/help of God? He did. As a result he was able to translate the Book of Mormon, organize a church, and introduce doctrine way beyond his 'pay grade'.

The fact that Joseph was a man with many weaknesses and foibles is not an embarrassment to the doctrine of his calling, it is built into the very way Latter‑day Saints understand how God has always chosen to restore and advance His work.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Perhaps I asked the wrong questions:

• why didn't Mormon god find someone even more disreputable than Joseph Smith, so that he could "prove" the point about using weak things?
• are present day prophets, seers, and revelators really as bad as they ought to be?
• should members make any defence of the church or its leaders for anything, or should they revel in the idea that Mormon god can still use them?

I'd like to see the modern leaders of the church admit to faults & failings like:
1. Money digging.
2. Glass looking reputation.
3. Family debt.
4. Failed economic ventures. Ensign Peak is a real problem for this one.
5. Bold claims regarding God. Maybe they have this covered.
6. Accusations of idleness and improvidence.
7. Religious outliers from the outset.
8. Legal entanglements and neighborhood disputes. I suppose we could stretch this to include temples that are unwanted in various places.

That way we might have more faith that they are not phonies, but really are the weak men of the earth. Members would still look up to them, and missionaries would devote lessons to explaining why their investigators should still trust these men.

[Morley]

[*]did Mormon god not anticipate that Joseph's character could be used in the future to discredit the restoration?[/list]

This is actually an interesting question. One I've thought about a lot. I often wonder why God couldn't have chosen someone polished instead of a "rough stone"...a prophet in the rough.

In the scriptures we read that God "has called the weak things of the world to shame the things that are strong". Why? Moses had his anger issues. David committed sexual sin and abused power. Peter denied the Christ. Yet God, if you believe in Him, called these people and many others to do His work. It appears that divine calling is not a 'reward' for already perfected character but an act of grace towards frail people who God then disciplines, corrects, and strengthens over time.

Joseph Smith was a young, obscure, poorly educated, and socially suspect young man. Some of the early revelations coming through Joseph Smith himself speak of God showing "forth His wisdom through the weak things of the earth".

By calling on the weak things of the world it may well be that God accomplishes at least three things, maybe more.

1. The servant has reason to be humble and contrite before God.
2. Followers are more focused on God rather than a perfect leader who may not have a whole lot in common with them.
3. The hearts of observers and possible disciples (of Jesus Christ) must decide whether or not to reject the message because of the messenger.

Someone who stumbles over Joseph's debts (Kirtland Bank, Nauvoo House, etc.), temperament (many examples), and youthful missteps (which Joseph ultimately admitted to) are reenacting, if you will, the same stumbling blocks that many in scripture had over Moses' speech and missteps, David's sins, or Peter's cowardice. The test becomes whether one can separate the message from the messenger. In other words, does the message carry forth the 'fruit' that leads one closer to God and His Kingdom.

That is an individual decision based on personal temperament, life experience, and other factors...including humility. Why do I say that? My experience has been that there are many who look for the mote/beam in another's eye. My question would be, "Who are you to cast the stone?"

Did Joseph deny his own weaknesses? Did he continually beseech the will/help of God? He did. As a result he was able to translate the Book of Mormon, organize a church, and introduce doctrine way beyond his 'pay grade'.

The fact that Joseph was a man with many weaknesses and foibles is not an embarrassment to the doctrine of his calling, it is built into the very way Latter‑day Saints understand how God has always chosen to restore and advance His work.

Regards,
MG

Once again, the above was largely AI generated and belongs somewhere else.

[Marcus]

This is actually an interesting question. One I've thought about a lot. I often wonder why God couldn't have chosen someone polished instead of a "rough stone"...a prophet in the rough.

In the scriptures we read that God "has called the weak things of the world to shame the things that are strong". Why? Moses had his anger issues. David committed sexual sin and abused power. Peter denied the Christ. Yet God, if you believe in Him, called these people and many others to do His work. It appears that divine calling is not a 'reward' for already perfected character but an act of grace towards frail people who God then disciplines, corrects, and strengthens over time.

Joseph Smith was a young, obscure, poorly educated, and socially suspect young man. Some of the early revelations coming through Joseph Smith himself speak of God showing "forth His wisdom through the weak things of the earth".

By calling on the weak things of the world it may well be that God accomplishes at least three things, maybe more.

1. The servant has reason to be humble and contrite before God.
2. Followers are more focused on God rather than a perfect leader who may not have a whole lot in common with them.
3. The hearts of observers and possible disciples (of Jesus Christ) must decide whether or not to reject the message because of the messenger.

Someone who stumbles over Joseph's debts (Kirtland Bank, Nauvoo House, etc.), temperament (many examples), and youthful missteps (which Joseph ultimately admitted to) are reenacting, if you will, the same stumbling blocks that many in scripture had over Moses' speech and missteps, David's sins, or Peter's cowardice. The test becomes whether one can separate the message from the messenger. In other words, does the message carry forth the 'fruit' that leads one closer to God and His Kingdom.

That is an individual decision based on personal temperament, life experience, and other factors...including humility. Why do I say that? My experience has been that there are many who look for the mote/beam in another's eye. My question would be, "Who are you to cast the stone?"

Did Joseph deny his own weaknesses? Did he continually beseech the will/help of God? He did. As a result he was able to translate the Book of Mormon, organize a church, and introduce doctrine way beyond his 'pay grade'.

The fact that Joseph was a man with many weaknesses and foibles is not an embarrassment to the doctrine of his calling, it is built into the very way Latter‑day Saints understand how God has always chosen to restore and advance His work.

Regards,
MG

Once again, the above was largely AI generated and belongs somewhere else.

He's already had two AI posts moved out of this thread in the last few hours, and now he did it again??? He really will do just about anything for attention. What a troll.

[I Have Questions]

Once again, the above was largely AI generated and belongs somewhere else.

He's already had two AI posts moved out of this thread in the last few hours, and now he did it again??? He really will do just about anything for attention. What a troll.

At this stage we must conclude it’s pathological. Don’t worry, Shades will give him his 15th warning and trust that MG will amend his behaviour of his own accord <holds breath> because giving him multiple warnings about the same repeating behaviour has always worked…

[Rivendale]

God picks imperfect people to work through to be prophets? I therefor blame god for every damnation he conveys on everyone throughout history. Prophets get inside information like angelic visitations, special communications, seer abilities, the ladies, reveletory skills and so much more. He could make everyone prophets and run a Hilbert hotel for prophetic missions.

[canpakes]

2. Followers are more focused on God rather than a perfect leader who may not have a whole lot in common with them.

There are no perfect leaders, or perfect people, so this really isn’t an issue.

And, maybe someone less problematic would have allowed followers to be more focused on God than the drama and shenanigans of a fellow who occasionally interpreted ‘having something in common’ with someone else as wanting the same wife.