consiglieri wrote:This is another example of President Eyring pushing the "everything done at church is by revelation" message.
Not long ago, he was pronouncing the idea that every calling should be accepted because it is of God.
This appears to be just the flip side of the same coin.
"Leaders aren't perfect, but you need to follow them because they are called of God."
Which doesn't seem too far away from, "Do what God commands you to do, and even if it is wrong, you will be blessed."
But what about when God deliberately steers leaders wrong in the selection of other leaders? For example: when stake presidents select pedophiles as bishops.
Is that God sending them down the wrong road so that they can have positive assurance that the next choice for bishop was the right one?
All of this crap really falls apart when you try to construct a consistent system out of all of it, doesn't it?
Lemmie wrote: My never-mo husband says Renlund sub-consciously got that term "payload" from his porn watching.
Good grief! Just because someone has an innocent fascination with rocketry due to their membership in the Planetary Society, some people try to make that simple yearning for the moon into a form of fetishism. It's not like Elder Renlund is forcing anybody to wear a space mask or indulge in cheese tasting.
If President Eyring read his Old Testament carefully, say Joshua 9, or 1st Kings 13, he might have a broader perspective of what is possible when we think prophets are always right.
Lemmie wrote: My never-mo husband says Renlund sub-consciously got that term "payload" from his porn watching.
Good grief! Just because someone has an innocent fascination with rocketry due to their membership in the Planetary Society, some people try to make that simple yearning for the moon into a form of fetishism. It's not like Elder Renlund is forcing anybody to wear a space mask or indulge in cheese tasting.
I will try to explain this to him. With a straight face. (I will not succeed.)
deacon blues wrote:If President Eyring read his Old Testament carefully, say Joshua 9, or 1st Kings 13, he might have a broader perspective of what is possible when we think prophets are always right.
If it's not in the Book of Mormon, it doesn't really count.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
deacon blues wrote:If President Eyring read his Old Testament carefully, say Joshua 9, or 1st Kings 13, he might have a broader perspective of what is possible when we think prophets are always right.
If it's not in the Book of Mormon, it doesn't really count.
I know. Sadly, Mormons are encouraged to dismiss the Bible, except the sections where they use eisigesis to support their own views. They also dismiss any scholarly study (example: documentary theory) of the Bible that doesn't match their viewpoint. That's one reason I attend a Presbyterian church now.
It doesn't actually take faith to believe God calls LDS leaders and is never wrong unless he can explain what would constitute a wrong choice or a right choice. Note in advance that it doesn't take faith to believe in a tautology and so I'm thinking we can know LDS leaders never make mistakes with absolute certainty.
Not that I was all that close to SLC or anything but I did meet Eyring once. He showed much more interest in the dude I was standing with than me, who had been talking about a new business he was running that if I had to guess, eventually didn't pan out. Eyring was all over this guy, taking him to task and asking him probing questions about his business model and expressing extreme skepticism to the point where the guy, who was totally outclassed, could barely get a word out and he'd probably have cried if he could have.
Eyring is one smart and analytical dude. If he's ever been cloned, and if his clone has never heard of Mormonism and one day follows Eyring around everywhere, then Eyring will never be able to give another faith promoting speech.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
What would it look like if God got a leadership pick wrong?
How is Eyring actually determining that the picks have all been “correct”? What is his criteria for measurement?
Last edited by Guest on Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
