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

[Maximus]

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.

When they say something, we should listen because they are prophets, but when they are wrong, they are just men and make mistakes. Even if the mistakes are institutional racism or being ok with shock therapy

[Jeff Lebowski]

When they say something, we should listen because they are prophets, but when they are wrong, they are just men and make mistakes. Even if the mistakes are institutional racism or being ok with shock therapy

This is the weaponization I was talking about.

[Maximus]

This is the weaponization I was talking about.

How is that weaponizing...and isn't that just a way of not responding

[Jeff Lebowski]

How is that weaponizing...and isn't that just a way of not responding

What kind of a response do you want? Not a lot of nuance there to work with.

[smokymountainrain]

You mean like this?

yet, you never hear it in regard to a specific issue.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Catholics say that the Pope is infallible, but they don't believe it.

Mormons say the the prophets are imperfect humans, but they don't believe it either.

[Maximus]

What kind of a response do you want? Not a lot of nuance there to work with.

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

[jay santos]

What kind of a response do you want? Not a lot of nuance there to work with.

Maybe not a lot of nuance in the way it was expressed there, but that is the core issue. The paradigm that prophets are human looking through glass darkly doing the best they can, stumbling often, but doing their best to lead the Church. That's good, that's logical. Then the paradigm that the prophet speaks directly to God and is leading the Church exactly the way God wants, we have continuing revelation, we have God's exclusive truth and authority, etc. That's good and logical. But it's difficult when the two paradigms collide. Not so logical and hard to figure out. The issue is not the infallible prophet paradigm. The issue is when we try to jump back and forth between paradigms suiting our needs. I think we don't. i think we're always in the former paradigm never in the latter. Or at least never in a way that's reliable enough to trust regularly. I think when people argue for the infallible prophet paradigm, they are sometimes taking that paradigm exclusively, which makes perfect sense and is valid to me, but usually going back and forth which doesn't to me.

[Moliere]

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.

I’ve accepted it. It’s why I view any of their counsel or doctrine the same way I view counsel or doctrine from my dad. Smart humans that have a lot of good life experience but certainly are not always correct. In fact, their social positions (gay marriage) I find to be wrong but I can’t say that in church or I’ll get in trouble.

[Uncle Ted]

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.

I figure President Nelson has figured out how to turn on the peep/seer stone... Now he is correcting all the bad policy that we all thought was divine.

[Jeff Lebowski]

yet, you never hear it in regard to a specific issue.

I can find examples for that. I think people tend to see what they are looking for.

But in general, no. The church doesn’t spend a great deal of time constantly pointing out how and when they screw up. Not sure I have ever seen an organization that does that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

yet, you never hear it in regard to a specific issue.

By the way, there is some of that in the recent essays posted by the church. You can argue about the wording and whether it goes far enough, but there is definitely admission of past mistakes on specific issues.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Maybe not a lot of nuance in the way it was expressed there, but that is the core issue. The paradigm that prophets are human looking through glass darkly doing the best they can, stumbling often, but doing their best to lead the Church. That's good, that's logical. Then the paradigm that the prophet speaks directly to God and is leading the Church exactly the way God wants, we have continuing revelation, we have God's exclusive truth and authority, etc. That's good and logical. But it's difficult when the two paradigms collide. Not so logical and hard to figure out. The issue is not the infallible prophet paradigm. The issue is when we try to jump back and forth between paradigms suiting our needs. I think we don't. i think we're always in the former paradigm never in the latter. Or at least never in a way that's reliable enough to trust regularly. I think when people argue for the infallible prophet paradigm, they are sometimes taking that paradigm exclusively, which makes perfect sense and is valid to me, but usually going back and forth which doesn't to me.

I agree that if someone bounces back and forth between those two paradigms, it would be confusing/problematic.

[YOhio]

But in general, no. The church doesn’t spend a great deal of time constantly pointing out how and when they screw up. Not sure I have ever seen an organization that does that.

That's like the main theme in Doctrine and Covenants.

[Goatnapper'96]

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.

Our civilization has a unproductive pre-occupation with "apologies." In the end it is best described by one of those old white dudes who even in 90's was way ahead: "pride is concerned with who is right, humility is concerned with what is right."

Give em the apology and they will have their proof that "they were right." I don't know if many are more concerned with being right than they are the policy but I think many are too concerned with being right.