At least to my perception this freedom forum is very marginal LDS, almost a breakaway sect. I find myself thinking it does not say very much about how popular Mr. Nelson is with mainstream LDS. I imagine views there to be very different.
I agree with that Huckelberry. Mainstream Latter-day Saints are pretty committed to the idea that whoever is currently president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, speaks for God.
huckelberry wrote:Of course mine is a limited understanding with limited information.
Even with that limited understanding, I think you have good insight.
Good point. Come to think of it, the Church is probably better off without everyone.
I wouldn't go that far!
Ok. What makes you good for Mormonism, or your grandma/neighbor/cousin/child, but your old friend or these anti-vaxxer types not good for the religion? You mean they are bad for Mormonism because they make the religion look bad or because they hurt the religion?
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
I have a friend up in Seattle who left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints back in the 1980s. My friend has a lot of bizarre ideas, and in many ways his life has gone to pot since he left the Church. I really think the Church is better off without him. Similarly, if people feel so strongly that vaccinations are dangerous that they're willing to ignore Russell Nelson's advice over them, and are concluding that because of that advice Nelson must be a fallen prophet, then again the Church is better off without them. As in the case with the Respect for Marriage Act, this time the LDS Church is on the right side of history.
Good point. Come to think of it, the Church is probably better off without everyone. People just tend to get in the way of the Church's goals these days.
Back in the old days (1970s, 80s, 90s) it was common in some places to deflect criticism of the church by saying that the church is perfect, but the members (who were clearly to blame for anything blameworthy) were not.
So, yes, I think you're quite right there, stem
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Good point. Come to think of it, the Church is probably better off without everyone. People just tend to get in the way of the Church's goals these days.
Back in the old days (1970s, 80s, 90s) it was common in some places to deflect criticism of the church by saying that the church is perfect, but the members (who were clearly to blame for anything blameworthy) were not.
So, yes, I think you're quite right there, stem
Yep. Lol. The Church which you'd think consists of its members, is perfect. Its members can't stop from making mistakes. The Church's goal is never realized as a result. Perhaps the only way to really get to its goal is to shed itself of that which is holding it back.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Ok. What makes you good for Mormonism, or your grandma/neighbor/cousin/child, but your old friend or these anti-vaxxer types not good for the religion? You mean they are bad for Mormonism because they make the religion look bad or because they hurt the religion?
There are very few things more central to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than the belief that God has chosen the current president to speak for Him. People who don't believe that, and let that disbelief fuel an opposition to the Church really don't add any value to the Church. Yes they hurt the faith. The Church has never been as extreme as some people make it out to be, and extremists like anti-vaxxers do it more harm than good.
Back in the old days (1970s, 80s, 90s) it was common in some places to deflect criticism of the church by saying that the church is perfect, but the members (who were clearly to blame for anything blameworthy) were not.
So, yes, I think you're quite right there, stem
Yep. Lol. The Church which you'd think consists of its members, is perfect. Its members can't stop from making mistakes. The Church's goal is never realized as a result. Perhaps the only way to really get to its goal is to shed itself of that which is holding it back.
I've heard that saying. I don't know whether or not I ever believed it myself. I definitely don't believe it now. I know of no reason to believe either the Church or the members are perfect. I just believe God wants me to be in it with them.
Back in the old days (1970s, 80s, 90s) it was common in some places to deflect criticism of the church by saying that the church is perfect, but the members (who were clearly to blame for anything blameworthy) were not.
The buildings themselves do not lie and hide past history. However, the architecture is far from perfect.
Wouldn’t being a heart surgeon give Russell M. Nelson some insight into immunology? It appears for the majority of posters on LDSFF that they’ve developed their own socio-political religion that trumps the Mormon one.
- Doc
You would think so. However, the man disbelieves in evolution.
Ok. What makes you good for Mormonism, or your grandma/neighbor/cousin/child, but your old friend or these anti-vaxxer types not good for the religion? You mean they are bad for Mormonism because they make the religion look bad or because they hurt the religion?
There are very few things more central to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than the belief that God has chosen the current president to speak for Him. People who don't believe that, and let that disbelief fuel an opposition to the Church really don't add any value to the Church. Yes they hurt the faith. The Church has never been as extreme as some people make it out to be, and extremists like anti-vaxxers do it more harm than good.
I mean they're people who are mistaken. Granted once people start spouting off dogmatically, like religionists, its hard to change their mind, but we're all just people existing with each other, i figure. We should be honored whenever anyone wishes to join us in any way. That's' how I'd see it, and how I wished it as a believer. But alas too many were like you or Holland and pulled out their metaphorical muskets and aimed them at me for my tastes. But that is the condition provided by dogma, so I get it. I suppose I'd hope for somethign more from something that is divinely inspired.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
I suppose I'd hope for somethign more from something that is divinely inspired.
Stem, people have all sorts of ideas about what a faith organization would do if it was divinely inspired. Are they right? Who knows? They are probably not all right. I think the best way to find out if an organization is divinely inspired is to ask God if it is. God definitely knows if it's inspired or not.
