Social media eruption

[bluebell]

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."

[morgan.deane]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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."

I'm glad you brought this up. This is another talk that always bothered me. He's a specially appointed messenger of the Lord, shouldn't he be able to realize and teach the exceptions directly in his talk? I don't think it takes that much effort to include in "general principles" the idea that there is a difference between killing and murder.

Its literally one simple line like: "there's a distinction between killing in military service and murder."  Or: The command in Exodus clearly refers to murder, because a chapter later Hebrew law outlines the rules regarding what modern legal analysts would call manslaughter or justifiable homocide." (I'm not making that up for effect, literally the next two chapters later it talks about manslaughter and justifiable homocide: Exodus 21:12-14; 22:2-3.)

And he's a former lawyer and state supreme court justice! Of all people it would be exceptionally easy for him to say, "just as the modern law recognizes the difference between accidental deaths, murder, and premedidated murder, the Lord recognizes those differences as well. [Then a second sentence about the Hebew law in Exodus 20-22.]"

I teach my undergraduates to anticipate and answer possible objections in their paper. These guys are supposedly inspired by God, and do it full time in a salaried position for decades, but can't make the same effort to carefully add a couple lines about murder and killing? "I teach general principles and can't be bothered explaining exceptions or receiving letters" is just a lazy cop out.

One of the things I've found as I've stepped back from full activity, is that when you take away the halo from our church leaders, and they can't rely on "I'm the prophet", they're actually kind of bad at their jobs. Like Elder Oaks condemns a poor man to a life time of oppressive guilt because a lawyer turned full time representative of God and leader of His church doesn't have time to add a couple necessary lines explaining key ideas in "thou shall not murder." 

Speaking of "I'm a prophet", these guys sure like to play the "I'm a prophet" card regarding cultural issues, like marriage or regarding their keys and authority. But when people find uncomfortable implications in their talk, their line suddenly changes to: "well you should figure out the exception", "I can't be bothered with your letter".  I've had people actually tell me this after really awful conference talks, "that's not what they actually meant." 

Well, they seem pretty clear and authoritative when they want to be, like when talking about the importance of mothers in the home. So the members on social media are just reflecting what they've been taught by those in authority for decades. To me, the issue isn’t that members can’t “recognize the exceptions,” it’s that those exceptions weren’t clearly taught in the first place. People who are good at their jobs anticipate misunderstandings and address them directly. These are serious religious principles, and we have leaders who claim to speak decisively for God, but fall back on ambiguity when their words create obvious problems. Authority should come with clarity, not after the fact disclaimers.  

Edited April 12 by morgan.deane
always find the typo after I hit publish

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, morgan.deane said:

I'm glad you brought this up. This is another talk that always bothered me. He's a specially appointed messenger of the Lord, shouldn't he be able to realize and teach the exceptions directly in his talk? I don't think it takes that much effort to include in "general principles" the idea that there is a difference between killing and murder.

Its literally one simple line like: "there's a distinction between killing in military service and murder."  Or: The command in Exodus clearly refers to murder, because a chapter later Hebrew law outlines the rules regarding what modern legal analysts would call manslaughter or justifiable homocide." (I'm not making that up for effect, literally the next two chapters later it talks about manslaughter and justifiable homocide: Exodus 21:12-14; 22:2-3.)

And he's a former lawyer and state supreme court justice! Of all people it would be exceptionally easy for him to say, "just as the modern law recognizes the difference between accidental deaths, murder, and premedidated murder, the Lord recognizes those differences as well. [Then a second sentence about the Hebew law in Exodus 20-22.]"

I teach my undergraduates to anticipate and answer possible objections in their paper. These guys are supposedly inspired by God, and do it full time in a salaried position for decades, but can't make the same effort to carefully add a couple lines about murder and killing? "I teach general principles and can't be bothered explaining exceptions or receiving letters" is just a lazy cop out.

One of the things I've found as I've stepped back from full activity, is that when you take away the halo from our church leaders, and they can't rely on "I'm the prophet", they're actually kind of bad at their jobs. Like Elder Oaks condemns a poor man to a life time of oppressive guilt because a lawyer turned full time representative of God and leader of His church doesn't have time to add a couple necessary lines explaining key ideas in "thou shall not murder." 

Speaking of "I'm a prophet", these guys sure like to play the "I'm a prophet" card regarding cultural issues, like marriage or regarding their keys and authority. But when people find uncomfortable implications in their talk, their line suddenly changes to: "well you should figure out the exception", "I can't be bothered with your letter".  I've had people actually tell me this after really awful conference talks, "that's not what they actually meant." 

 

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.

Quote

Well, they seem pretty clear and authoritative when they want to be, like when talking about the importance of mothers in the home. So the members on social media are just reflecting what they've been taught by those in authority for decades. To me, the issue isn’t that members can’t “recognize the exceptions,” it’s that those exceptions weren’t clearly taught in the first place. People who are good at their jobs anticipate misunderstandings and address them directly. These are serious religious principles, and we have leaders who claim to speak decisively for God, but fall back on ambiguity when their words create obvious problems. Authority should come with clarity, not after the fact disclaimers.  

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).

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

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."

Yeah, that is more than a little callous to the guy who thought he was damned and was clearly distressed. I mean, that was back when the CHI was still held close to the chest so it is not like he could have checked the rulebook.

And for this latest pushback that counsel doesn’t help anyways. So is the general rule about who is to be the primary or sole breadwinner still in effect or not? People are still out there teaching it. Should they be?

I see apostles complaining about people not listening to the things they teach but a lot of the time it is because they don’t acknowledge changes they have subtly made without telling anyone.

If you communicate vaguely and cagily you can expect misunderstandings.

Edited April 13 by The Nehor

[MustardSeed]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

see apostles complaining about people not listening to the things they teach but a lot of the time it is because they don’t acknowledge changes they have subtly made without telling anyone.

Exactly.  I’m not one to hang on every word of the 12.  I listen and consult with God, and make my path.  It would be confusing otherwise. 

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, that is more than a little callous to the guy who thought he was damned and was clearly distressed. I mean, that was back when the CHI was still held close to the chest so it is not like he could have checked the rulebook.

And for this latest pushback that counsel doesn’t help anyways. So is the general rule about who is to be the primary or sole breadwinner still in effect or not? People are still out there teaching it. Should they be?

I see apostles complaining about people not listening to the things they teach but a lot of the time it is because they don’t acknowledge changes they have subtly made without telling anyone.

If you communicate vaguely and cagily you can expect misunderstandings.

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).

[Senator]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Exactly.  I’m not one to hang on every word of the 12.  I listen and consult with God, and make my path.  It would be confusing otherwise. 

I think there is a growing number in the church that are adopting that approach.

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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 certainly don’t want more directives from human beings.. There’s too much personal opinion in such directives and we are all different.  I’m not critical of them so much as I am critical of folks who hang on every word and expect everybody to do the same

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

He reminds me of Smac in his speaking style and I'm assuming it has something to do with being trained as a lawyer. 

My dad was this way publicly and privately.  He was a mechanical engineer (ended up the director of the main plane maintenance/repair center for United Airlines in San Fran).  He would have made a good lawyer except he was too practical and that side of the law would have annoyed him.

Edited April 13 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I certainly don’t want more directives from human beings.. There’s too much personal opinion in such directives and we are all different.  I’m not critical of them so much as I am critical of folks who hang on every word and expect everybody to do the same

I believe God allows flawed human beings to run the Church because if they were more effective, fewer would feel the need to seek out the Spirit for themselves.  It is so much easier to look outside at another person for direction from God than it is to look inside and try to connect to the Spirit oneself….if only because we seem to be more willing to trust that the other isn’t struggling while we often know we are.

Edited April 13 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I believe God allows flawed human beings to run the Church because if they were more effective, fewer would feel the need to seek out the Spirit for themselves.  It is so much easier to look outside at another person for direction from God than it is to look inside and try to connect to the Spirit oneself….if only because we seem to be more willing to trust that the other isn’t struggling while we often know we are.

I don’t think God has a choice 😅

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t think God has a choice 😅

There are other ways God could communicate with us. I have a hard time believing God went with this option because it was the best of a lot of bad choices. He could have an angel show up every General Conference to give us more direct communication. He could have an angel visit each of us individually a few times a year to update us on what we need to work on and what we need to do.

There are plenty of other options. God chose not to use them so the message getting through clearly just doesn’t seem that important to God for whatever reason.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t think God has a choice 😅

To work with flawed individuals…certainly.

However, perhaps there is the possibility that he could be micromanaging, sending angels/messengers with pre scripted talks and detailed policies.  There would still be errors, but then he sends the messenger back until they get it close enough.

Also could be “calling home” any president or apostle who gets even a little too creative.  

Give out prophecies that are soon enough and clear enough it makes it clear that the prophets are pretty accurate in conveying what God means.  Now there would still be exceptions, but even there he could be very hands on in choosing bishops who would listen to him and rather than needing to do detailed prompts, a yes or no to the question “am I an exception” would suffice as they would direct the ones who were exceptions to seek out what God wants for them from God.

The whole live by faith principle would be diminished to a great extent though.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There are other ways God could communicate with us. I have a hard time believing God went with this option because it was the best of a lot of bad choices. He could have an angel show up every General Conference to give us more direct communication. He could have an angel visit each of us individually a few times a year to update us on what we need to work on and what we need to do.

There are plenty of other options. God chose not to use them so the message getting through clearly just doesn’t seem that important to God for whatever reason.

I wonder at times if he let us design the world in part to help us learn the far reaching consequences of our choices and like a lot of kids who have the safety they need currently, we thought we were capable enough to run things mostly by ourselves.

Edited April 13 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

To work with flawed individuals…certainly.

However, perhaps there is the possibility that he could be micromanaging, sending angels/messengers with pre scripted talks and detailed policies.  There would still be errors, but then he sends the messenger back until they get it close enough.

Also could be “calling home” any president or apostle who gets even a little too creative.  

Give out prophecies that are soon enough and clear enough it makes it clear that the prophets are pretty accurate in conveying what God means.  Now there would still be exceptions, but even there he could be very hands on in choosing bishops who would listen to him and rather than needing to do detailed prompts, a yes or no to the question “am I an exception” would suffice as they would direct the ones who were exceptions to seek out what God wants for them from God.

The whole live by faith principle would be diminished to a great extent though.

I wonder at times if he let us design the world in part to help us learn the far reaching consequences of our choices and like a lot of kids who have the safety they need currently, we thought we were capable enough to run things mostly by ourselves.

I now have a mental image of an apostle speaking in General Conference and an angel with a flaming sword appearing in the congregation and pointing at his eyes and then pointing at the speaker.

Now I can’t stop giggling.

 

Edited April 14 by The Nehor

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now I can’t stop giggling.

 

You got me going too. 
 

I suspect the viewership of GC would go way up. 

Edited April 13 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

... (B)e kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (April 2013) "Lord, I Believe," Address given at 183rd Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City UT April 12-13, 2013, accessed on line at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng on April 14, 2026.

 

[Senator]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Yes, Elder Holland, I can be patient, kind and forgiving. At the same time I may chose to not doubt certain doubts if I feel they have merit, and "not hang on every word of the 12.  I listen and consult with GOD and make my own path" 

[Kenngo1969]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

You got me going too. 
 

I suspect the viewership of GC would go way up. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Senator said:

Yes, Elder Holland, I can be patient, kind and forgiving. At the same time I may chose to not doubt certain doubts if I feel they have merit, and "not hang on every word of the 12.  I listen and consult with GOD and make my own path" 

Fair enough.  Your reply illustrates perfectly well that, although questions may be inevitable, doubt and faith are choices.  To each, one's own.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Fair enough.  Your reply illustrates perfectly well that, although questions may be inevitable, doubt and faith are choices.  To each, one's own.

Are they though? I don’t have the mental ability to convince myself of things that I am convinced are untrue or the ability to doubt things that have repeatedly been proven to be true. Maybe in some cases it is a choice I don’t think that is always or even usually the case.

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

... (B)e kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (April 2013) "Lord, I Believe," Address given at 183rd Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City UT April 12-13, 2013, accessed on line at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng on April 14, 2026.

 

5 hours ago, Senator said:

Yes, Elder Holland, I can be patient, kind and forgiving. At the same time I may chose to not doubt certain doubts if I feel they have merit, and "not hang on every word of the 12.  I listen and consult with GOD and make my own path" 

 

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Fair enough.  Your reply illustrates perfectly well that, although questions may be inevitable, doubt and faith are choices.  To each, one's own.

 

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Are they though? I don’t have the mental ability to convince myself of things that I am convinced are untrue or the ability to doubt things that have repeatedly been proven to be true. Maybe in some cases it is a choice I don’t think that is always or even usually the case.

Where did the "I am convinced are untrue" come from in the first place?    That's not a choice you made?  So, some "[un-]convincer" just showed up, committed aggravated k!dnapping,  aggravated a$$ault, and so on, on you, and said, "You are [or are not] going to believe this," and you had no choice but to go along?  You had no choice to act, but only the choice to be acted upon? OK.  As I said, to each, one's own.  As for me, I was created to act rather than to be acted upon.  See 2 Nephi 2:26.  (I will emphasize that I might think all of my possible choices to act completely suck, and my only real option is to choose the one that I think sucks the least, but that doesn't remove my power to choose, or my power to act.)

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

 

Where did the "I am convinced are untrue" come from in the first place?    That's not a choice you made?  So, some "[un-]convincer" just showed up, committed aggravated k!dnapping,  aggravated a$$ault, and so on, on you, and said, "You are [or are not] going to believe this," and you had no choice but to go along?  You had no choice to act, but only the choice to be acted upon? OK.  As I said, to each, one's own.  As for me, I was created to act rather than to be acted upon.  See 2 Nephi 2:26.  (I will emphasize that I might think all of my possible choices to act completely suck, and my only real option is to choose the one that I think sucks the least, but that doesn't remove my power to choose, or my power to act.)

Ummmm…..no. I doubt because I deeply examined the evidence and saw a lot of reasons to doubt.

If I thought objective reality could be amended to what I want it to be by beliefs then I would choose differently but that is not the Universe I live in.

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/12/2026 at 8:26 AM, bluebell said:

This discussion reminds me of one of (then) Elder Oak's famous quotes from a talk he gave in 2005 ...

Technically, he's more than one tree, so, it's President Oaks, possessive Oaks' or Oaks's.  😉 

Sorry!  Couldn't resist!

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ummmm…..no. I doubt because I deeply examined the evidence and saw a lot of reasons to doubt.

If I thought objective reality could be amended to what I want it to be by beliefs then I would choose differently but that is not the Universe I live in.

Okay.  I guess the rest of us are "denying objective reality," then.  By all means, you do you.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  I guess the rest of us are "denying objective reality," then.  By all means, you do you.

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  )