The Policy of Exclusion. It was from the revelation that the children of same-sex marriages could not be members of the Church unless they reached the age of eighteen, formally renounced their parents, and obtained special permission from the Quorum of the Twelve.
The title was a bit confusing since it started as a policy, but Elder Russell Nelson was giving a youth talk in Hawaii and wanted to embellish what he was saying, so he told the audience that the policy was a revelation from God to President Thomas S. Monson.
If the policy was then a revelation, wouldn't it be the ROX now?
All atheists and theists are agnostic in a sense. They aren't different sets of the same category, as I see it. Agnostic is a category defining knowledge or lack thereof. Theist or atheist is a category defining belief. I tend to think no one really knows. I'd see myself as an atheist, and more particularly an agnostic person who doesn't see good reason for a god concept in the world--and definitely no evidence or rational reason to believe at this stage. Of course it's all pending for me.
I'd be happy to find reason to jump on board any truth claim that makes sense.
If you're looking for a truth claim that makes sense, this particular author has a tremendously compelling way of making sense on the God question: David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God. And I don't say that because of any Latter-day Saint bias--Hart's ideas about God are very different from those you heard at church, and probably different from any you've encountered.
If I'd read this book when I was an atheist, it would have been a complete shocker. Well worth it.
All atheists and theists are agnostic in a sense. They aren't different sets of the same category, as I see it. Agnostic is a category defining knowledge or lack thereof. Theist or atheist is a category defining belief. I tend to think no one really knows. I'd see myself as an atheist, and more particularly an agnostic person who doesn't see good reason for a god concept in the world--and definitely no evidence or rational reason to believe at this stage. Of course it's all pending for me.
I'd be happy to find reason to jump on board any truth claim that makes sense.
If you're looking for a truth claim that makes sense, this particular author has a tremendously compelling way of making sense on the God question: David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God. And I don't say that because of any Latter-day Saint bias--Hart's ideas about God are very different from those you heard at church, and probably different from any you've encountered.
If I'd read this book when I was an atheist, it would have been a complete shocker. Well worth it.
Don
Don
I've never read Hart. But all the reviews make it seem like a book well worth reading, I shall have to jump on it. Thanks for the recommendation. I have found I rather enjoy books when the reviews are both sided, many negative ones, and many positive ones. That, to me, means the author is making people actually think as they read, always a good book has followed when I buy a book with both kinds of reviews. And this particular book has both kinds, and in quite dramatic fashion! Thanks Don.
All atheists and theists are agnostic in a sense. They aren't different sets of the same category, as I see it. Agnostic is a category defining knowledge or lack thereof. Theist or atheist is a category defining belief. I tend to think no one really knows. I'd see myself as an atheist, and more particularly an agnostic person who doesn't see good reason for a god concept in the world--and definitely no evidence or rational reason to believe at this stage. Of course it's all pending for me.
I'd be happy to find reason to jump on board any truth claim that makes sense.
If you're looking for a truth claim that makes sense, this particular author has a tremendously compelling way of making sense on the God question: David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God. And I don't say that because of any Latter-day Saint bias--Hart's ideas about God are very different from those you heard at church, and probably different from any you've encountered.
If I'd read this book when I was an atheist, it would have been a complete shocker. Well worth it.
Don
Don
I've skimmed it before on previous recommendations. You know sitting in a library and thumbing through it a bit. I won't give my impressions until I read it through. I just picked it up on this latest recommendation. Thanks.
“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
Just curious, on what other Internet forum did you previously post?
I don't remember the precise name. It had "Bible" and "Mormon" and "Discussion" in it. It was a Facebook forum.
What brought you to this forum?
I did a Google search on "Mormonism", and it picked up this forum.
Glad you’re here.
"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” Jude 1:24
“the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7 ESV
There was this poster here a while back who claimed he believed in preserving good things forever, but was unable to provide any clarity on what was a "good thing" or how one preserved it forever. I wonder what happened to him?
That was me. I don't have any more clarity on what a "good thing" is now or how to preserve it. So what? My point at the time was that if we didn't all agree that open, honest discussion was a good thing, then this forum wouldn't exist. We're not all trolls. So good things exist, whether I have a satisfactory definition of what they are or not. As for preserving them forever, that's a goal we all need to have, not an activity I have ever pretended to understand completely. So again I say, so what? My inability to provide clarity on either is irrelevant. Good things exist, and we need to hope that ways to preserve them forever also exist, completely independent of my ability to provide clarity on either of them.
There was this poster here a while back who claimed he believed in preserving good things forever, but was unable to provide any clarity on what was a "good thing" or how one preserved it forever. I wonder what happened to him?
I believe we are mostly wrong about what we believe.
There was this poster here a while back who claimed he believed in preserving good things forever, but was unable to provide any clarity on what was a "good thing" or how one preserved it forever. I wonder what happened to him?
That was me. I don't have any more clarity on what a "good thing" is now or how to preserve it. So what? My point at the time was that if we didn't all agree that open, honest discussion was a good thing, then this forum wouldn't exist. We're not all trolls. So good things exist, whether I have a satisfactory definition of what they are or not. As for preserving them forever, that's a goal we all need to have, not an activity I have ever pretended to understand completely. So again I say, so what? My inability to provide clarity on either is irrelevant. Good things exist, and we need to hope that ways to preserve them forever also exist, completely independent of my ability to provide clarity on either of them.
Martha Stewart occasionally reminds of of good things, with her saying, "It's a good thing." :p
"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” Jude 1:24
“the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7 ESV
