Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Refusing To Do The 10-Day Social Media Fast


Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I was raised being taught that the prophet cannot lead the church astray.  So, it came as a shock to my testimony when I learned that they had and were.

 

They can’t lead it astray. They can be wrong though.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Balaam beating his own ***.

Edit: Stupid filter is trying to edit the Bible!

Ha!

Serious question, though. When was the last time you believe the prophet made a mistake? If you don't have an answer, then you (or whoever) actually believe the prophet is infallible, contrary to saying otherwise.

ETA: I shouldn't try to ask The Nehor a serious question, so anyone else should answer this ;)

Edited by MiserereNobis
Posted
4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ha!

Serious question, though. When was the last time you believe the prophet made a mistake? If you don't have an answer, then you (or whoever) actually believe the prophet is infallible, contrary to saying otherwise.

ETA: I shouldn't try to ask The Nehor a serious question, so anyone else should answer this ;)

Hey, I am capable of being serious. I just try not to make a habit of it.

The last time was an apostle. I think it was six conferences ago. I firmly believe something he said was wrong.

And no, I am not going to tell you what he said or which apostle said it.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

They can’t lead it astray. They can be wrong though.

It all depends on how one means “astray”. Me, I think it was meant to indicate apostacy, not error while staying mostly on track in other ways, but being fully lost from the path. As long as the Church can redirect to a more effective path with revelation in doing God’s will without God having to start from the basics again (as he did with Joseph), the Church is not astray in my view. 

When God has to ditch all the leadership in order to get needed revelation to his Church, that is leaders leading astray for me. 

Edited by Calm
Posted (edited)
On 10/8/2018 at 10:03 PM, Amulek said:

My wife noted this was one of the changes as well, but she actually enjoyed having the entire First Presidency participate. 

 

It was an honour to have them, speak to us. The pioneers went through so much, gave up so much, when asked. We've been asked something so small.   

Edited by Somebodyz
Posted
12 minutes ago, Somebodyz said:

It was an honour to have them, speak to us. I've missed the fuss, doing the social fast, and fast from, any other media that brings negative and impure thoughts to mind. Spent the extra time doing Family History.  The pioneers went through so much, gave up so much, when asked. We've been asked something so small.   

And yet so many are complaining over the little we’ve asked

Posted
12 minutes ago, Somebodyz said:

It was an honour to have them, speak to us. I've missed the fuss, doing the social fast, and fast from, any other media that brings negative and impure thoughts to mind. Spent the extra time doing Family History.  The pioneers went through so much, gave up so much, when asked. We've been asked something so small.   

I think for most, the social media fast isn't a big deal.  I heard, on the Mormon Matters conference review, one mom describe how she is home with her young children who she home schools... Social media along with home schooling facebook groups are a lifeline for her.  She expressed a desire to follow the prophet's counsel but may need to customize her approach.

My point is just that for a majority of us I would bet that the social media fast is giving up something that may be primarily a mindless thing we do to kinda take a break from the daily tasks in front of us.  But for others, it is something more significant.  I posted on this thread (I think... maybe page 3) about how the "fast" could need some customizing for some people (another example is those who use it for work).  I think that everyone can understand and meet the spirit and intent of President Nelson's challenge even if they have to adjust it bit. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

And yet so many are complaining over the little we’ve asked

I don't see "so many" complaining.  I've heard more positive comments than negative.  I'm finding those who don't really feel they want to do it, are some of the younger members (but then, I'm old :lol: so almost everyone is younger now).  My wife has enjoyed being off her phone so much (even though she actually isn't on it that much and looses it all the time!).

Posted
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They can’t lead it astray. They can be wrong though.

As @Calm notes -- it's all in how you define astray...

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It all depends on how one means “astray”. Me, I think it was meant to indicate apostacy, not error while staying mostly on track in other ways, but being fully lost from the path. As long as the Church can redirect to a more effective path with revelation in doing God’s will without God having to start from the basics again (as he did with Joseph), the Church is not astray in my view. 

When God has to ditch all the leadership in order to get needed revelation to his Church, that is leaders leading astray for me. 

For me, we've most definitely gone astray.  But, corrections can be made without starting over from scratch... so some may not consider the church as having gone astray.

For you, @The Nehor, can you identify something the prophet has been wrong about or is it just a theoretical possibility?

Posted
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

When was the last time you believe the prophet made a mistake?

When he ordered scrambled eggs instead of soft poached.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

When he ordered scrambled eggs instead of soft poached.

Ha. I prefer medium poached myself, but I'm definitely a poached fan.

But to be serious, when was the most recent time the prophet made a mistake? If you can't answer it, then for all intents and purposes you believe prophets are infallible.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Hey, I am capable of being serious. I just try not to make a habit of it.

The last time was an apostle. I think it was six conferences ago. I firmly believe something he said was wrong.

And no, I am not going to tell you what he said or which apostle said it.

Not the prophet, though? And why won't you share what mistake the apostle made?

Edited by MiserereNobis
Posted
28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As @Calm notes -- it's all in how you define astray...

For me, we've most definitely gone astray.  But, corrections can be made without starting over from scratch... so some may not consider the church as having gone astray.

For you, @The Nehor, can you identify something the prophet has been wrong about or is it just a theoretical possibility?

I could but I prefer not to. It is not my place to pass judgement on them and covenants I have made mean I need to keep these reservations to myself.

Posted
Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Ha. I prefer medium poached myself, but I'm definitely a poached fan.

But to be serious, when was the most recent time the prophet made a mistake? If you can't answer it, then for all intents and purposes you believe prophets are infallible.

Or just that you are even more fallible than they are and figure mistakes were made that you aren't currently aware of because of lack of knowledge of details or because you are making the same mistake.

I know I have made lots of mistakes with my kids, but it is hard to know what they are because I don't have that level of hindsight yet.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Not the prophet, though? And why won't you share what mistake he made?

No, I think prophets have been wrong too. The most recent one was an apostle.

Criticizing apostles is above my pay grade. I sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators and I do not see how possibly sowing doubts about them in others is compatible with that stance.

Edited by The Nehor
Posted
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

It is not my place to pass judgement on them and covenants I have made mean I need to keep these reservations to myself.

That means you might believe they made a mistake, but your actions are as if they are infallible if you never say anything or do anything about it.

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

That means you might believe they made a mistake, but your actions are as if they are infallible if you never say anything or do anything about it.

I do not see how that follows. I can believe someone is fallible without having to point it out. I do it all the time. I also live a little differently as I may amend or not follow the counsel I believe is wrong.....at least for me.

Edited by The Nehor
Posted

I guess I don't understand it. We Catholics don't have a problem pointing out mistakes our leaders make because it is firmly entrenched in our minds that these are fallible people and their teachings are VERY rarely above reproach, and when they are it is a very clear situation (last one happened in 1950).

It appears that you are trying to have it both ways. You state over and over that leaders are infallible, are just men, but that's not how you act.

I'm just pointing out how it appears.

Posted
4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But to be serious, when was the most recent time the prophet made a mistake? If you can't answer it, then for all intents and purposes you believe prophets are infallible.

Asking for 'most recent' is asking for a level of omniscience I simply don't possess.

I think it was a mistake when the prophet Peter denied knowing the Saviour on the eve of His crucifixion. That was a long time ago, and the only reason we know about it is because someone wrote it down. Otherwise, all we'd know is that both Peter and the nascent Church survived and outlived his mistake. No lasting harm done.

I personally think it was a mistake when Russel M. Nelson gave the thumbs-up to whoever from Church PR pushed for the 'I'm a Mormon' branding. I think he admitted as much in this last General Conference. I expect both Pres Nelson and the Restored Church to survive this mistake. No lasting harm done.

Posted
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I also live a little differently as I may amend or not follow the counsel I believe is wrong.....at least for me.

Ok, this means that you are acting on your belief if you amend or not follow the counsel you believe is wrong. Now that I can understand.

Posted
1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, this means that you are acting on your belief if you amend or not follow the counsel you believe is wrong. Now that I can understand.

Yeah, but I am not ostentatious about it. I usually do not tell anyone.

Posted
10 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I don’t really understand this to be honest. The D&C is full of the Lord rebuking His servants when they are wrong. And we are clearly taught that only Christ was ever perfect. So why the shock that the presiding authorities are human and make mistakes from time to time?

Again, it comes down to being taught that 'revelation' is as close to direct communication with God as is possible short of face-to-face encounter.

I was taught that 'revelation' is the consequence of prayerful and soulful contemplation.

More importantly, however, God 'speaks' in precise language which transcends 'human language'. I imagine it to be an emotion-based 'language' in which there can be NO misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the message He is delivering. How could revelation be otherwise; especially in matters relating to the doctrine and policy of His Church?

God warns of 'leaning on thine own understanding' yet the 'interpretive' nature of Man DOES, apparently, result in 'personal', rather than 'spiritual', understanding - hence the example of conflicting statements of Church leaders regarding the status of 'the black man' with specific reference to his pre-mortal 'state' (I use THIS example ONLY because every Church member will be familiar with it).

My view is that 'revelation' is, or should be, inviolable because it comes from God.

The question of 'fallibility' is a non-issue because it only serves to muddy the pure water of revelation.

It is incomprehensible, to me, that the fallibility of Man would in any way whatsoever compromise the direct current that is spiritual revelation.

Again, this is what I was taught. My entire and sincere beliefs in relation to prophets and revelation are founded upon these precepts. Given this, is it so unreasonable that I am left with a feeling that the carpet has been pulled from under my feet?

Clearly, the Church still has influence upon my life; but unlike others, I believe its influence was/is positive (albeit not wholly so).

 

Posted
10 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I don’t really understand this to be honest. The D&C is full of the Lord rebuking His servants when they are wrong. And we are clearly taught that only Christ was ever perfect. So why the shock that the presiding authorities are human and make mistakes from time to time?

You've hit a nail squarely on its head.

Surely, to attain to the position of 'Apostle', and especially of 'Prophet', one MUST have also attained a higher state of spirituality and faith.

Yes, Apostles and Prophets are 'Men' BUT they are elevated, in the eyes of God, AMONG 'Men' on account of their spiritual closeness to The Father.

When one has been taught to revere the leaders of the Church, often by way of accounts of prominently-spiritual experiences throughout their lives, which serve to consolidate their highly-tuned spiritual state, it is INDEED 'shocking' to suddenly - and for me it WAS sudden - be told that the leaders of the Church 'sometimes get it wrong'.

HOW, exactly, can a man who has reached such a lofty state of spirituality 'get it wrong'? Seriously!

Posted
8 minutes ago, OnceWasMormon said:

You've hit a nail squarely on its head.

Surely, to attain to the position of 'Apostle', and especially of 'Prophet', one MUST have also attained a higher state of spirituality and faith.

Yes, Apostles and Prophets are 'Men' BUT they are elevated, in the eyes of God, AMONG 'Men' on account of their spiritual closeness to The Father.

When one has been taught to revere the leaders of the Church, often by way of accounts of prominently-spiritual experiences throughout their lives, which serve to consolidate their highly-tuned spiritual state, it is INDEED 'shocking' to suddenly - and for me it WAS sudden - be told that the leaders of the Church 'sometimes get it wrong'.

HOW, exactly, can a man who has reached such a lofty state of spirituality 'get it wrong'? Seriously!

So true...in my view.

Posted (edited)

 

Quote

HOW, exactly, can a man who has reached such a lofty state of spirituality 'get it wrong'? Seriously!

Because we don't actually just do one thing in our lives, but many things and someone may be highly developed in one area but lacking in another, even one similar (think of a musician who is very good with the cello, quite decent with piano, but not so great with a flute).

Edited by Calm
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...