Radio Free Mormon: President Nelson Jumps The Shark

[_I have a question]

I’ve been mulling this over for a while, and maybe this is the right place and time to make the comment - but the Apostles portray themselves as just a bunch of Yes men. They just do as God/Jesus tells them, no question. They never tell stories of how they changed the Lords mind, or how what the Lord wanted didn’t fit with their personal integrity or morals. I wonder, is their anything they would say No to if the Lord asked them? And if not, if they aren’t standing up to Him on behalf of the members on things that are really important - like the victimisation of the children of gay parents, then they might as well not be there. They’re just like the rock - an inanimate object that simply and unquestioningly projects the Lords words.

Everybody on this board knew that the policy in 2015 was wrong, immoral, without doctrinal standing and simply a childish spat in a tantrum over the Supreme Courts same sex marriage decision. And here we are, proven correct yet again. Perhaps if the Apostles had the backbone, the moral integrity of the members and the critics, they could help the Lord avoid such embarrassments in the future. Right now Mormon Jesus looks like an incompetent spoilt six year old who didn’t get the right Ken Doll for His birthday. And the Apostles are pandering to Him. Of course, the alternative is that God wasn’t really involved in any of this and it’s simply the actions of a homogenous bunch of white male conservatives who are still mentally in the 1950’s and 60’s.

[_moksha]

If we now agree that it wasn't, it raises the question if we can ever believe them when they claim their decisions are the result of revelation?

Which is the question of infallibility....something as old as the first prophet. In 20 years of online conversations (or brawls) it has always, always come down to the demand a prophet can never be believed again after a mistake.

What Juliann seems to be missing is that the so-called "mistake" was lying that a revelation had occurred and that the Brethren were complicit in maintaining the lie that a revelation had indeed occurred. Thus Analytics' question of how can we believe future claims of revelation following a proven lie about receiving the last one, cannot be dismissed with minimalization.

[_RockSlider]

Thanks for letting me know Julliangry's take on the podcast.

I have a feeling the reason she didn't finish the podcast has to do with something other than question begging . . .

But hey! At least she thought the first part was good!

My bet, she listened to the whole thing. It's just that none of the regular pro tbm's there could ever admit giving you the time of day.

[_Stem]

The more I think about it, perhaps delusion is a better way to explain how Nelson and his fellow Q15 operate. They have probably tricked themselves over the years into believing that whatever they think in their heads is somehow God communicating to them. How else can they say what they do with a straight face? Although, Holland sure gets carried away with his stories and false statistics at times. I wonder if he believes that he is inspired during those times, e.g., inspired to exaggerate?

I think you're right on the money. it's as if they say, "it must be true because the thought appeared in my head and God works inside me, in my heart and my mind". Nelson tells, and his wife tells us too, at night he stays awake and waits for thoughts to come flowing in and he calls that revelation. He's calling the stupid things he thinks when he's sleep deprived revelation. I usually call the inspired thinking I get in the middle of the night my mind racing and trailing off on various subjects. When I get up I forget most of those thoughts and focus back on reality.

Well, Holland's story telling and exaggeration is another story. He seems justified in telling fibs for the greater cause of making members feel good and confident about the Church. I think his tactics clearly expose a lack of integrity.

[_Shulem]

What Juliann seems to be missing is that the so-called "mistake" was lying that a revelation had occurred and that the Brethren were complicit in maintaining the lie that a revelation had indeed occurred. Thus Analytics' question of how can we believe future claims of revelation following a proven lie about receiving the last one, cannot be dismissed with minimalization.

How does she explain away the revelation when she disagrees with it?

Oh snap!

[_Shulem]

Thanks for letting me know Julliangry's take on the podcast.

I have a feeling the reason she didn't finish the podcast has to do with something other than question begging . . .

But hey! At least she thought the first part was good!

My bet, she listened to the whole thing. It's just that none of the regular pro tbm's there could ever admit giving you the time of day.

And if she didn't listen to the whole of it she'll likely go back to finish the rest seeing she is curious.

I'll bet the Church Police are listening in too. I smell an excommunication coming around the bend. RFM is going to be hauled into a court of love and put to death.

RIP

[_Shulem]

Jehovah, go down and tell President Monson that the church cannot baptize children of parents who are in a gay marriage.



It shall be done, Elohim.


.
.
.
.
.
.
Less than 4 years later
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jehovah, go down and tell President Nelson that the church can now baptize children of parents who are in a gay marriage.



It shall be done, Elohim.


.
.
.
.
.
.
30 years later
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jehovah, go down and tell the Church President that the church welcomes gay marriage so long as they covenant to live the gospel the same as everyone else.



It shall be done, Elohim.