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

[ScoopJahoop]

So either it was a divine policy and then divinity changed his mind, or divinity lets his prophets/seers/revelators make stuff up and call it divine policy. Seems like a little more care should be taken with the one true church is all.

[KillerDog]

I think this whole thing is an interesting look at the political dynamics of the Q of 12. There are splits within the quorum. They don’t always agree on things and sometimes the bad guys win. Apostles are not perfect and they allow their personal issues to influence their decision making.

[old_gregg]

I think this whole thing is an interesting look at the political dynamics of the Q of 12. There are splits within the quorum. They don’t always agree on things and sometimes the bad guys win. Apostles are not perfect and they allow their personal issues to influence their decision making.

dallin o’s eye hasn’t stopped twitching since the rollback. he’s going to need a couple of extra spanks from mrs. oaks ii before he’s ready to face his brethren this weekend.

[CardiacCoug]

So either it was a divine policy and then divinity changed his mind, or divinity lets his prophets/seers/revelators make stuff up and call it divine policy. Seems like a little more care should be taken with the one true church is all.

Welcome to the real world and welcome to this fine message board!

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I think it is clearly implied.

Sometimes confession is a necessary requirement for forgiveness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CardiacCoug]

Maybe, but that's not what I meant. I just wouldn't use the word superstitious. otherwise, I'm good.

OK not necessarily super stitious but maybe a little stitious.

[ScoopJahoop]

Welcome to the real world and welcome to this fine message board!

Cheers!

[clackamascoug]

Cheers!

Like a real ward - we miss those who move out - and appreciate the new members. Feel free to go to Ellis Island at the bottom of the page - get a feel for the banter - and introduce yourself and state your current church status. Welcome
Aboard.

[wuapinmon]

I’m sorry but being flustered or confused about this policy being reversed so quickly would only happen to somebody who is weirdly superstitious and literal about what “revelation” really is and how decisions in the church are made.

I'll indict that statement. "only happen" first of all is odd coming from you. Also, what revelation really is is someone trying to do what they think is right, listening to their conscience, and then, at some point, they say that it came from god--I'm not mocking people who do that. So, decisions in the church are made by a bunch of well-intentioned great-grandfathers who are left to their own devices, bringing with them all of the inherent prejudices of their upbringing and groupthink (like all humans do). Now, that the teachings of Jesus Christ are at the core of their group, they have a damned-near perfect ideology on which to base their opinions, and a reference against which to check their more odious instincts. The high moral makeup of the Brethren (and Mormons, generally) is a direct reflection of the emphasis on the teachings of Jesus Christ as an institution. The anti-Communist overreaction of the Benson-era Brethren notwithstanding, generally, the church's leadership enjoys some of the most noteworthy moral teachings, examples, stances, and interpretations of the last two centuries, especially when it comes to how to sow peace in the world. The aberrations were caused by groupthink and immorality at the head in the case of Joseph's sleeping around. He institutionalized the behavior, and the groupthink only surrendered the practice after being faced with destruction. Similarly, the priesthood ban was a policy that became doctrine and, sadly, only was reversed once society had changed so much that the "policy" was wholly indefensible and was going to hurt the organization's moral reputation. The same thing will happen with the opposition to homosexual's sexual attraction. It will come to be seen, not as a moral issue, but as indefensible on the part of the Church's leadership, especially once the leaders are not Baby Boomers anymore.

So, while people can believe that God really does inspire (using the truest root of that word) revelation in church leadership, the many mistakes that go against the teachings of Jesus can be seen as cultural (writ large and write small) biases that pierced the overlying goodness and morality of the group to such an extent that they deviated from their moral foundation, ergo, they were not inspired by anything other than the culture in which the Brethren existed and the epoch in which decisions were made, overlain onto the teachings of Christ.

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.

non-sustainable way to approach religion.

That's the crux of why they changed. The policy was damaging the church; they saw the repercussions of their revelation/policy and mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.

So either it was a divine policy and then divinity changed his mind, or divinity lets his prophets/seers/revelators make stuff up and call it divine policy. Seems like a little more care should be taken with the one true church is all.

I agree. See above.

I think this whole thing is an interesting look at the political dynamics of the Q of 12. There are splits within the quorum. They don’t always agree on things and sometimes the bad guys win. Apostles are not perfect and they allow their personal issues to influence their decision making.

Yep. But, even then, I think they're well-intentioned. People do what they think is right, and it often takes a large, overwhelming dispute to change someone's mind. Luckily, our organization encourages and fosters humility, so even the leaders can see their mistakes, once confronted with the results, improper logic, or potential harmful ramifications to the group. Our ability to humble ourselves, even at the top, is one of the beautiful things in Mormonism. However, the teaching that the Brethren are fallible isn't really believed by many members. It's also sometimes used as a cudgel to stifle dissent.

I didn’t realize we could have four. I’ll add John Grisham and Michael Stipe.

You can have as many influences as you like. I'll throw in John Lennon and e.e. cummings to mine.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So either it was a divine policy and then divinity changed his mind, or divinity lets his prophets/seers/revelators make stuff up and call it divine policy. Seems like a little more care should be taken with the one true church is all.

This is exactly what I was talking about. People just can’t seem to accept the fact that they are human. In spite of thousands of years of contrary evidence.

[smokymountainrain]

This is exactly what I was talking about. People just can’t seem to accept the fact that they are human. In spite of thousands of years of contrary evidence.

jeff, it seems folks take issue with the fact they won't admit they are human - and as such are susceptible to error.

if they simply said "we're sorry that happened, we are human, we do indeed make mistakes, we now realize we were wrong, etc" these discussions would look entirely different.

[Maximus]

I don't know what God willed. I remain open to the possibility that there was some reason for the policy, that it served some purpose that I don't or can't see or that in the long run, and God's game is over centuries, not just a lifetime, it changes some condition or circumstance that serves His purpose. But I will say that I did not like the policy and I never received a confirmation that it was a good idea nor do I see it as consistent with God's core doctrines, which I think are eternal. Like I said, I am very happy for these changes.

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

[Jeff Lebowski]

jeff, it seems folks take issue with the fact they won't admit they are human - and as such are susceptible to error.

if they simply said "we're sorry that happened, we are human, we do indeed make mistakes, we now realize we were wrong, etc" these discussions would look entirely different.

You mean like this?

"And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes." - DFU, 2013

Do you want them in sackcloth and ashes on temple square?

This whole fallibility/infallibility thing seems to be an obsession of the ultra-orthodox and the prog-mo/ex-mo groups. And in most cases, both groups are trying to weaponize it.

[Maximus]

You mean like this?



Do you want them in sackcloth and ashes on temple square?

This whole fallibility/infallibility thing seems to be an obsession of the ultra-orthodox and the prog-mo/ex-mo groups. And in most cases, both groups are trying to weaponize it.

And then bednar said don't question us.

[Northwestcoug]

jeff, it seems folks take issue with the fact they won't admit they are human - and as such are susceptible to error.

if they simply said "we're sorry that happened, we are human, we do indeed make mistakes, we now realize we were wrong, etc" these discussions would look entirely different.

Or put another way, why are some people content with implied feelings and reasons, and not a sincere contrite apology? ‘Left a trail of carnage in its wake’ is the way this policy was described above. If it was that bad, in what other setting in this world would anybody be satisfied with a similar non-apology? If the brethren are human, why aren’t they expect to act as such?