bluebell

That's really cool

I would assume that Nehor recognizes that others have deeply examined the evidence and come to different conclusions. There is room for us to be true to what we believe without impugning what other people believe to be true. That doesn't mean that we each have our own truth, but more like we can recognize that we are each doing the best with what we have experienced and internalized and it can be reasonable for different people to come to different conclusions (even if some of us are ultimately wrong, it doesn't mean it was unreasonable for us to believe as we did). I don't think he's saying that anyone who believes differently than he does is denying reality (but maybe he is and I'm denying it )

I’m ok with that.

I don't know how he is when speaking personally to someone, but when Pres. Oaks is speaking in his calling he does have a reputation for being very business-like, precise, and without much emotion. He reminds me of Smac in his speaking style and I'm assuming it has something to do with being trained as a lawyer. For some members that will be his strength and for others it will be his weakness. I'm not comparing the 12 to Jesus because there is no comparison, but Christianity has a history of 'speaking cagily' sometimes. Christ did it on purpose and for a reason but I think with our leaders most of the time it's because they are flawed humans talking to millions of people with very different baggage, experiences, and levels of spiritual maturity. It's a recipe for misunderstanding in a religion that believes in teaching correct principles and then letting the members govern themselves in all but the most serious of things. When we are guided by the spirit and staying close to Christ I think we do ok, even when we get it wrong sometimes. I think that's why God is ok with us with all of us very messed up people out here trying to do His work. If we are distant from the spirit then yeah, it sucks. (I sometimes wish they were more strident in their teachings and forceful in declaring truth as well. But in the moments that they are, those always seem to be the times when the members freak out the most because they don't like what they are saying. I don't know if we really want them to be more vocal in general as much as we want them to be more vocal when they agree with us).

I see what you mean. I do agree that it would be very easy for him to always explain exceptions, and I would guess that many many teachers and authorities have done that in the past (explain an exception, such as the exception between killing and murder). In fact, I know they have in regards to killing and murder because the church has put out stuff specifically geared towards soldiers and this exact issue. It's also a subject extensively covered in the Book of Mormon too. ** But this experience that Elder Oak shares speaks to the bigger picture in my opinion, which is that when someone is really worried or struggling with a teaching in the church, people explaining why they don't need to be (or trying to explain what was 'actually' meant) hardly ever helps. Almost always (we've had probably hundreds of experiences on this message board alone illustrating this) it doesn't make the person feel any better and they continue to see it the way they first perceived it, not the way it is clarified or later explained. In those instances, it really is only the spirit that can help someone get the understanding and the closure that they need to move forward. Elder Oaks, in my opinion, isn't sidestepping the issue or ignoring the pain that can exists in these circumstances, he's providing the solution. We can't go to him or anyone else to feel good about our standing with God when we are really struggling with the morality of something we have done. We need to go to God personally. General authorities, good teachers, and caring parents can help (and they can help a lot) but in the end, if we are worried about what God thinks about us then God is where we need to go to get that closure. I obviously see this differently than you do because as a specially appointed messenger of the Lord, I feel like he was doing exactly what he should be doing. Teaching people the general principles and doctrines and then pointing people towards a personal relationship with Christ. The members are reflecting what they've been taught by church leaders, and by their parents and grandparents and well meaning people at church, and their political ideology, and their own personal understanding of what all the teachings mean.... I think that members reflect what they think is right and also don't like the idea of exceptions for other people because that doesn't seem fair. So we balk at the idea of "gospel rule and gospel exception". There's risk in it that some people find unnecessary, especially in a room of prophets and apostles. But I do think it's important to note that exception is not the same thing as ambiguity. Elder Oaks is not talking about ambiguity. **(I think Elder Oaks did explain the exception to the man: "The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. I'm assuming he went into more detail than just that small statement when speaking with the man personally).

This discussion reminds me of one of (then) Elder Oak's famous quotes from a talk he gave in 2005: "If you feel you are a special case, so that the strong counsel I have given doesn’t apply to you, please don’t write me a letter. Why would I make this request? I have learned that the kind of direct counsel I have given results in a large number of letters from members who feel they are an exception, and they want me to confirm that the things I have said just don’t apply to them in their special circumstance. I will explain why I can’t offer much comfort in response to that kind of letter by telling you an experience I had with another person who was troubled by a general rule. I gave a talk in which I mentioned the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Afterward a man came up to me in tears saying that what I had said showed there was no hope for him. “What do you mean?” I asked him. He explained that he had been a machine gunner during the Korean War. During a frontal assault, his machine gun mowed down scores of enemy infantry. Their bodies were piled so high in front of his gun that he and his men had to push them away in order to maintain their field of fire. He had killed a hundred, he said, and now he must be going to hell because I had spoken of the Lord’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord."

Not in my opinion because I don’t think that drinking in and of itself is immoral.

I saw this this morning on Facebook but didn't look at the comments. What could people possibly be upset over??

The Sudafed in the old NyQuil is what did me in. Horrible dreams all night, raging heartbeat, dilated pupils and altered mental state. Which is annoying because Sudafed is one of the only medicines we have that actually works for head colds.

Both are good things. You guys need to sit down and talk it out so that both things can be accomplished.

I have a friend who doesn't believe we landed on the moon but does believe the earth is round so I feel like there's hope for him. But he believes that aliens built the pyramids because humans couldn't ever do that so the hope is small.

There is no proof that will convince someone who thinks they know more than they actually do. All the data points to us having landed on the moon, even the Russians agreed that we did and no one had a bigger stake in us faking it than them. Men have died training for Apollo missions. Dozens of men have been on moon landing missions, some like Apollo 13 were supposed to go and almost died trying to get back home again. What would the point of decades of this level of pretending be? Even just reading the books these people have written should be enough to convince most people. But the trouble is that facts are useless to people who deliberately won't accept them and instead focus on an ignorant understanding of science to form their worldview. I saw a comment on a facebook picture of the earth put out by nasa where someone wanted to know why the photo wasn’t fuzzy if it was a real photo because the earth is spinning and moving objects are fuzzy in pictures. We have just all gotten so dumb and fearful of being fooled as a society that we are very very easy to manipulate now.

I would get on facebook and join some community pages (most towns have a facebook group) and put the call out there. There are a lot of people with big hearts, you just have to find them.

Have they dated the settlement?

I can't offer anything but prayers but I hope someone can help. It's hard to feel responsible for lives you have no real control over.

Tony is also Catholic I believe. 😊

Agreed. It can't just be Friday. We need Sunday.

All true. And of course, there would have been no message for them to carry to anyone and no reason to. Jesus would have been a good teacher and an exemplary man but nothing more to them. Another rabbi maybe to remember maybe.

I don’t think there is Christianity without the resurrected Christ.

The kids and I saw the movie last night so I better understand what part in the story you were talking about. (Excellent movie by the way!). The book is incredibly science-dense. The movie has much much less science in it, though it does follow the basic same story that the book does. In the book, there are no astrophage predators in the petrova line. All the sample from the petrova line tells rocky and grace is that there is a lot of life on Adrian, and that something is keeping the astrophage numbers even. They guess that it's a predator of some kind (bacteria or amoeba or whatever) but they have no proof of it. They try to collect enough samples to find the specific organism they need but can't find any in the line or the upper atmosphere of the planet and decide that the predator must life in or on the planet. They use a bunch of science to figure out where the astrophage are breeding in the atmosphere and deduce that the predators must be there as well. That's why they have to drop the chain to get the sample. In the book they have to drop the chain much farther down than in the movie.

oops

I agree that is incredibly harmful. It’s strange to think that anyone in this day and age would still be giving such counsel but I would guess there are still a few out there who believe sexual orientation is a choice. Even though the church has stopped teaching that. From what you’ve said it sounds like this ruling by SCOTUS doesn’t impact the church or any of its practices or programs. Am I understanding that right?

Is the church still promoting it then? (Sincere question)

I didn’t realize they were talking about the magazine. I thought they were talking about doing a dedicated lesson manual.

Given how the church likes to test new things out on wards before they are implemented, I bet that this has been tried out in a few wards for a while and so the leadership has an idea of how it's going to go.