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

[tooblue]

I disagree somewhat with your second paragraph. I believe others' actions can reach a tipping point in actively driving people away from attending church. I have someone close to me who chooses not to attend because of rejection they received at a critical time. Only one person is truly qualified to judge the heart.

I don't disagree with the idea that others' actions can reach a tipping point in actively driving people away. Regardless, their choice is exclusively theirs to make. Yes, there is only one person qualified who will judge that heart, and I have faith he will judge it with an understanding you and I will never achieve. And that very idea brings me a great deal of comfort.

[creekster]

Agreed. That is why the stabbed person has medical bills he/she needs to pay.

Funk, it would be a lot easier to take you seriously if it at least appeared you were doing something besides reasoning backwards from your already tightly held conclusion.

[Bo Diddley]

If he's omniscient you wouldn't be able to change his mind on anything, unless he was not purely good.

I don't follow this logic.

[creekster]

I have no concerns with old, straight, conservative white dudes making changes. My concern is when they state the changes were made by direct divine guidance, yea, even the Will of the Lord, and then they walk them back.



https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/artic...V56CxTm2NMX7GQ

So what period of time would have been sufficient to assuage your alarm? If RMN had passed would that be long enough? Or is it the mere fact that a subsequent change was made, at all, at any time, enough to do you in? Because if it is the latter, then there are plenty of prior instances that should have given you cause to feel this way.

[creekster]

I don't follow this logic.

Because if he knows everything and is purely good, then he will always be right already and could not be persuaded to do/be anything better. Would you change his mind to an inferior position? That would be less good, less right.

[Bo Diddley]

Because if he knows everything and is purely good, then he will always be right already and could not be persuaded to do/be anything better. Would you change his mind to an inferior position? That would be less good, less right.

That's some binary thinking there. The story of the 116 pages says differently.

[creekster]

I am very happy about all of the announced changes. I did not like the prior policies and while I did not actively rebel against the organization of the church when they were announced, I did try to go out of my way to make sure anyone I knew who might have been negatively affected felt loved and included to the extent I could.

I appreciate the discussion here. But I am always a bit surprised how some of you are so eager to satisfy the urge to criticize and undermine. I just cant see how this is a bad thing, by any measure, nor can I see how this change is in any manner uniquely undermining to the truth claims or divine guidance claims of the church. But, that's just me.

[creekster]

That's some binary thinking there. The story of the 116 pages says differently.

Not at all. You think that Joseph changed God's mind in that story? Hardly. God allowed it to happen. But God's mind was the same.

Also, try to keep it in context, which was as a response to Wuap's specific statement.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I think one of the things I like about all of this is that this change erodes the notion that the Big 15 are necessarily out-of-touch old dudes. They certainly have biases based on their age and background (true of all of us), but if you look at the institutional progress on homosexuality in the last decade, these crusty, old, straight, conservative, white dudes are more dynamic than they get credit/blamed for.

I'm asking this sincerely, what institutional progress has happened?

[Bo Diddley]

Not at all. You think that Joseph changed God's mind in that story? Hardly. God allowed it to happen. But God's mind was the same.

Also, try to keep it in context, which was as a response to Wuap's specific statement.

Ok, he changed his answer to Joseph. That seems like semantics to me.

A blanket statement like that should hold regardless of context.

[All-American]

I'm asking this sincerely, what institutional progress has happened?

Tune in on Saturday and you’ll find out!!

[tooblue]

I'm asking this sincerely, what institutional progress has happened?

Can I sincerely flip the question: What institutional progress hasn't happened?

Of course you will then have to define what you mean by progress, and support your meaning with justification. For example you could suggest progress means to you that the manner in which the word of wisdom is observed has changed to allow for the consumption of alcoholic beverages in moderation. You could then cite articles or studies that support your position. But then I could counter with the idea that no amount of alcohol is good for your health and in turn cite my own evidences such as:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/64161...l-study-claims

Meaning that your idea of progress is faulty. Which then begs the question, why play such a game?

[MartyFunkhouser]

Tune in on Saturday and you’ll find out!!

I'll be watching Priesthood session.

By watching, I mean sitting in a church where it is playing while I catch Pokemon.

[creekster]

Ok, he changed his answer to Joseph. That seems like semantics to me.

A blanket statement like that should hold regardless of context.

It does hold. And that is far from semantics, it is God allowing Joseph to do what he wants to do despite God's counsel. God knew it was a bad idea and told him so. You are confusing God changing his response to Joseph's request ("no, bad idea" to "yes, but still a bad idea") with God changing his mind (it remained a bad idea in both responses). It is not a 'blanket statement', it is a response to Wuap's possibly tongue in cheek statement that he wants an omniscient God who he has to convince to change his mind.

[Bo Diddley]

It does hold. And that is far from semantics, it is God allowing Joseph to do what he wants to do despite God's counsel. God knew it was a bad idea and told him so. You are confusing God changing his response to Joseph's request ("no, bad idea" to "yes, but still a bad idea") with God changing his mind (it remained a bad idea in both responses). It is not a 'blanket statement', it is a response to Wuap's possibly tongue in cheek statement that he wants an omniscient God who he has to convince to change his mind.

I agree with you when I accept what you mean by changing your mind.