DiscussMormonism.com

Maybe if she had listened to the end of the podcast, she would have gotten the point.










Nah!!!

consiglieri wrote:

Here is his black and white thinking problem....the reason it was changed, I think, is because it was not a good policy. He even says that people were leaving, so...newsflash, a LOT of us would agree with his original analysis, but more stayed than left. Then it only comes down to all the layers of infallibility. It was handled very badly. Yup. Very. I chalk it up to a steep learning curve that no prophet has ever had to face. But they changed it. He may not have realized the consequences originally, but it would be stupid to argue they don't get it now, in addition to the consequences of changing it. But they changed it.

Didn't finish it, too much question begging.

Black and White thinking my A$$...why do apologists always frame why we no longer believe as black and white thinking? It is just the opposite. Because we no longer see the church in black and white but can see it in all of its varied colors and nuances that we were able too escape from the false narratives promoted by the church.

Just wanted to add that was Juliann Craig is quoting.

Juliann admits to not liking the policy.

Does she engage with the fact President Nelson claimed it to be revelation?

And then does she deal with how we should discern which of President Nelson's claimed revelations are actually from God?

consiglieri wrote:No matter how diplomatic you are with her, she will never confront the issue that what we are talking about here is not "infallibility," we are not talking about "making a mistake," we are talking about the current president of the church fabricating a complete story about the receipt of a revelation.

That is something else entirely to my mind.

This is exactly it -- no one expects "prophets" to be infallible. We know that on a day to day level they make mistakes and can fall to some of the same problems as anyone else whether it's having sex with a woman working in your home behind your wife's back or telling people that the moon is inhabited.

But when you claim something is revelation FROM GOD, you had better be right. Because the moment that your revelations are proven to be wrong whether it's Nelson and the LGBT policy or Joseph Smith telling people that God claimed the Indians were Lamanites (when DNA says otherwise), that means you are then screwing with what is claimed to be the word of God -- that goes beyond infallibility unless we're now saying that God makes mistakes too, which no one in the church will ever say.

consiglieri wrote:Just wanted to add that was Juliann Craig is quoting.

Yes I was quoting Juliann.

Now with respect to the November policy I’d like to ask a question. It was common knowledge among exmormons that Monson had been suffering the effects of dementia years before the November policy was ever leaked. A friend of mine saw him at a wedding several years before the policy leaks and reported how confused and disoriented Monson was. . How he kept repeating himself and required help to even read words on a card provided him for the occasion. My friend now an exmormon, was embarrassed for Monson. He was clearly in the throws even then of advanced dementia. We were talking about Monson’s dementia here on this board as far back as 3 years before the November policy leak So my question, in light of his condition then and other similar reports back then of his declining mental health, how could this revelation that Nelson claimed Monson had even occur. And even if Monson had the ability to speak the words, why would the other 14 accept the mental rantings of someone with advanced dementia? I smell a rat and suspect that Nelson orchestrated the entire thing with the help of Oaks and then presented it to the other 13 and the world as revelation. Thoughts?

Wonder what the other leaders thought when President Nelson announced that it was a revelation? I would assume they went along with it to preserve harmony within the quorum. I imagine President Nelson and Elder Oaks viewed the claim as a fait accompli by setting the odious policy up as a revelation.

If only they could have foreseen the blowback from those of good conscience and what a catalyst it was for young millennial Mormons to leave the Church.

I suspect apostles NelSatan and Oaks exercised a power play in getting the November 2015 policy written under the First Presidency letterhead while Monson was out to pasture and soaking his diapers. The other apostles know full well what happened and all of them have had to make of it what they will. It has not strengthened their testimonies but has led them to question the legitimacy of the church and wonder even more why Jesus Christ has not appeared to them.

The stage is being set for a crack in the structure that holds the top leadership together in which there could be more power plays and perhaps even confrontations and serious accusations.



Secret bickering and complaining among the apostles could lead to a split and more power grabs.

I enjoyed consiglieri’s summary of the only conclusions that could possibly be drawn about the two revelations - the original one and the u-turn:
1. Both were revelations - in which case God is a flip flopper who doesn’t really know/care what He’s doing.
2. Both were not revelations - Nelson has lead the Church astray.
3. One was a revelation but the other wasn’t - Nelson has lead the Church astray.

Take your pick.

I also thought the point was well made that both the original decision and it’s reversal cannot have been compassionate and in the best interest of the children - because one is the opposite of the other. Can one simultaneously make a case that beating your kids and stopping beating your kids are both in their best interest and acts of compassion?