"Hold my root beer" - the Russell M. Nelson thread

[MartyFunkhouser]

A post from a friend of friend on how the church could have responded in one of Clark’s other dimensions.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them"
-- Dallin H. Oaks

[Northwestcoug]

A post from a friend of friend on how the church could have responded in one of Clark’s other dimensions.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reading those GA quotes from 2015, it is definitely not disingenuous to say they really believed the policy was revelation and God's will on the matter.

[creekster]

But that’s what the church asks me to do every Sunday. No, not asks. Commands.

How so?

[creekster]

OK not necessarily super stitious but maybe a little stitious.

Thanks, Michael.

[creekster]

So, my argument, ultimately is, you can't have it both ways. Either you accept that they are human and are going to make mistakes because there is no god inspiring them and they are merely left to their own devices--granted with a very strong moral code on which to base their decisions, or there is a god, a god who changes his mind due to human beseeching, and who wises up and changes his opinions based on cultural progression in society--and therefore inspires his servants' decisions, leaving them blameless for his chauvinism. Or, you could argue that God changes his mind, and therefore declassifies certain sins as sins, the way the SCOTUS does with crimes.

Either God screws up or the Brethren do. If we have an imperfect deity (which I'm fine with; I mean, he tells us he's jealous of other gods), then revelation makes sense as seen in our church's history. If the Brethren screw up, as Special Witnesses, Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, then it doesn't withstand any kind of empirical scrutiny that god would let people endowed with those powers to act in his name botch things the way they sometimes have. Ergo, god does not exist. Or, if he does, the entire paradigm offered by the church for revelation is false.

.

This is a false dichotomy. You assume you know God's mind? WHy isn't it possible that he allows his church to make mistakes and to correct its course pursuant to gentle spiritual input over time? Is it possible that God doesn't focus on the same issues to the same degree or in the same time frame that we do? I accept they are human and will make mistakes not becasue there is no god inspiring them, but because God's input IS inspiration and is NOT compulsion and requires interpretation. Are you saying you're comfortable with a God who used to dislike gays but now decides that orientation isnt really a sin? And that he changed his mind because some set of his children kept asking him and, like a distracted father tossing his car keys to the whining teenager who won't stop asking for them on Friday night, he relents? This just doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't want it both ways. I believe in something in the middle. I don't think God changed his mind on this. I think the leaders did. I don't think they are without inspiration, I think it took them a few tries to get there. I do not expect perfection because no one is perfect. It seems to me the people here who are the most insistent that the church leaders are wrong are also the ones least willing to allow them to be wrong. Of course they aren't perfect! And of course their imperfections appear most stark on difficult present issues.

FWIW, I dont believe that jealous God stuff is a correct statement. In fact, I don't buy that much of the Old Testament as literal.

[creekster]

Meh. God changed his mind alot. First gays can be cured, oh wait no they can't.. But they should marry anyways
Oh wait that doesn't work. Maybe they should be shocked to not be gay anymore..oh that doesn't work . Well we should at least spend a bunch of money to make sure gays aren't married for a year or two. And can't baptize the kids until we can

If you really think that was God then you should be ok with what is happening.

[creekster]

Ok fair enough... I just think the overall "they are men" argument when they are wrong but "they are prophets, listen" otherwise is disingenuous.

On gays for example church has changed positions half a dozen times. But each position was called inspiration.

Blacks were never going to get the priesthood, taught as doctrine, church still won't say it was a mistake.

You say they say they aren't perfect, but they never say they were wrong

Has the church changed position on gays that often? I dont think so. They have changed certain aspects of the implementation of doctrine, and they have done so in manner they believe was approved of by God. But they have been wrong at certain times, as tacitly admitted by their subsequent changes. I'm not sure the church (as opposed to some individuals) has much else to gain from any greater apologies.

As to race and the priesthood, the essay the church published is pretty clear: prior pronouncements are "disavowed." They are thus repudiated and called improper. That seems pretty clear.

[smokymountainrain]

CNN weighs in:

Claiming to speak for God is a tricky business — especially when God changes his mind, often, on hot-button political issues after receiving immense public backlash.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/us/mo...sal/index.html

[creekster]

CNN weighs in:



https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/us/mo...sal/index.html

FAKE NEWS

[BigFatMeanie]

It's my tribe. And, I'll bet you a shiny penny I'm right some day. Also, if you're going to throw rocks at me, cuidado pierde.

Which of my 3 sentences did you consider to be throwing rocks at you?

[BigFatMeanie]

It's my tribe. And, I'll bet you a shiny penny I'm right some day. Also, if you're going to throw rocks at me, cuidado pierde.

Also, I'll take you up on the bet, but let's put more than a penny on it. How about the loser of the bet flies to the location of the winner and buys the winner and a guest dinner at the winner's choice of restaurant?

Because I'm betting something won't happen, we have to have a boundary on the timing of the bet so I don't win by default when one or both of us die. I'm 49 years old. You are slightly younger I believe. Both of us are overweight so I think we've got about 25 years on our life-expectancy. How about we say within the next 25 years?

Here is a draft of the terms:

BigFatMeanie and Wuapinmon hereby agree to a bet on whether gay marriage (i.e. man married to man or woman married to woman) will be welcomed and solemnized in LDS temples as a matter of general course (i.e. we're not including rare situations in which someone posed as a member of the opposite gender and convinced someone to get married in the temple and it turned out a dude was married to a dude, or something rare/accidental along those lines). If gay marriage is welcomed and solemnized in LDS temples any time before the year 2045, Wuap wins the bet. If gay marriage is not welcomed and solemnized in LDS temples before the year 2045, BFM wins the bet. The loser of the bet agrees to travel to the winner's location and buy the winner and a guest dinner at a restaurant of the winner's choosing.

Do you agree to this bet? Maybe we should have one of the super-l337 lawyers on this board review for any possible loopholes?

[smokymountainrain]

damn, i need to make some bets with BFM. dude doesn't eff around. plus we live in the same town so he won't even need get on a plane.

[BigFatMeanie]

damn, i need to make some bets with BFM. dude doesn't eff around. plus we live in the same town so he won't even need get on a plane.

I got back from Vegas last week so I'm still in a gambling mood. What action are you offering?

[smokymountainrain]

I got back from Vegas last week so I'm still in a gambling mood. What action are you offering?

i'm always in a betting mood. got nothing right now, but i'll keep you in mind.

[SCcoug]

i'm always in a betting mood. got nothing right now, but i'll keep you in mind.

Pick one of the myriad of GC rumors.