clwnuke

I mean no offense, but none of that is implied directly or indirectly in the First Presidency's statements. To your other questions - yes, no the decision was left to me, and the First Presidency put no conditions on what was or was not a 'justifiable' decision.
Funny, how I had this similar conversation while I was at my pharmacy receiving the second dose of my Shingles vaccine several months ago, and the pharmacist knew so little about virology but was adamant about his feelings that I should get the J&J vaccine. I mentioned that I had been an investor in vaccine development and was very familiar with the approval process that had not been completed for the three available vaccines. I then told him that I would gladly take the Covaxin vaccine when it became available in this country. He didn't even know about it, but that didn't surprise me. He was just parroting what he was reading in mainstream media. Beware of low-knowledge medical personnel recommending what your health care should entail. Medicine is no different than any other profession, there are a few stellar people and the rest are just doing their jobs.
Now, how about some fair questions for you - If President Nelson had counseled with Wendy and she had determined that she would not be taking the vaccine, would it have made any difference to President Nelson? Would he have delayed his vaccination in solidarity with her and delayed the First Presidency statement? And, are you certain that there wasn't a delay in issuing the statement for that very reason?

Novavax and/or Covaxin. Novavax is actually the most effective Covid vaccine in the world and is based on protein sub-unit technology, similar to the pertussis vaccine. Covaxin is India's home developed vaccine based upon inactivated whole virus technology. I'm partial to Covaxin but would take either

I have consistently worn my mask as required by my work, and by all governmental mandates long before the First Presidency spoke on the matter. I do this despite knowing that:
1. Masks ARE effective, and
2. Mask mandates are NOT effective.
If you search on Google for pre-2019 articles about the effectiveness of mask mandates you will see that there was universal agreement that while masks can reduce pathogen transmission, mask mandates rarely result in meaningful reductions in case load because we do not wear them 24x7. It's a bit like having a bag of black ink in a swimming pool. If you only keep the bag closed while people are in the pool, but open it when they are not, the end result will be a pool full of black ink. Hence, both statements above are true.
Below is a graph of three neighboring Southeastern states. One had a mask mandate and the others did not. Can you tell which is which? Nope, and nobody can. It's the same for all states that had mask mandates. You can't tell when the mandates started or see any meaningful reductions in hospitalizations or deaths when you look at the graphs. The pre-2019 science is still true in 2021 and will be going forward.
When I was a missionary in Japan long ago there were many people who would wear masks on the trains and in public places, but the medical advice we were given was that it was not necessary because it was not effective overall in reducing case load. Funny how we still see the same results today, but we act as if something has changed.
It is these types of sudden changes in the recommended "science" that has reduced confidence in our current health leaders, and unfortunately possibly in those that repeat their false advice even if it is done with good intentions. Nevertheless, I wear my mask at church and in my calling 'religiously' because I'd rather promote unity than fight the battle over the effectiveness of the advice.

Answer: In July 2020, Alabama added a statewide mask mandate to its already stringent lockdown measures. Florida and Georgia never had mask mandates. Georgia was decried as an "experiment in human sacrifice" when Governor Kemp lifted lockdown restrictions in April 2020. Despite this, all three states followed the same trajectory.
 

My questions were just that. Just trying to understand why people do what they do.

Then we are of similar mind. As President of the Church I would probably have done the same things they have done, but I have not reached that same spiritual conclusion at this time. I do plan to be vaccinated, but I have to wait for the two vaccines I trust to become available. Thanks for a great discussion!

I mean no offense, but none of that is implied directly or indirectly in the First Presidency's statements. To your other questions - yes, no the decision was left to me, and the First Presidency put no conditions on what was or was not a 'justifiable' decision.
Funny, how I had this similar conversation while I was at my pharmacy receiving the second dose of my Shingles vaccine several months ago, and the pharmacist knew so little about virology but was adamant about his feelings that I should get the J&J vaccine. I mentioned that I had been an investor in vaccine development and was very familiar with the approval process that had not been completed for the three available vaccines. I then told him that I would gladly take the Covaxin vaccine when it became available in this country. He didn't even know about it, but that didn't surprise me. He was just parroting what he was reading in mainstream media. Beware of low-knowledge medical personnel recommending what your health care should entail. Medicine is no different than any other profession, there are a few stellar people and the rest are just doing their jobs.
Now, how about some fair questions for you - If President Nelson had counseled with Wendy and she had determined that she would not be taking the vaccine, would it have made any difference to President Nelson? Would he have delayed his vaccination in solidarity with her and delayed the First Presidency statement? And, are you certain that there wasn't a delay in issuing the statement for that very reason?

Absolutely, but with qualifiers that are often neglected. "Individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination. In making that determination, we recommend that, where possible, they counsel with a competent medical professional about their personal circumstances and needs." That was clear in their January 19, 2021 release. Nothing of substance changed in their recent admonition other than the mention of masks.  Church News articles emphasized that President Nelson described how he had counseled with his wife and personal physician prior to making his individual decision to be vaccinated. He expected us to follow the same process, which many church members had already done months before the First Presidency message.

My mindset has not changed. I do not believe the First Presidency intended to make a medical statement when they called the current vaccines safe and effective. Rather I believe they were using language that reflected the thoughts of the current 'mainstream' health leaders in a PR statement addressing the issue.

Why does their discomfort have to conform to your view of things? The plain fact is that the mask wearing has caused many to stop attending. I am concerned for those individuals every bit as much as I am those who stopped attending because some won't wear masks. Both are irrational in my view.
 

Agreed, and me too.  Also, I saw a chart from the Wall Street Journal the other week, showing that money invested in startups has like tripled since 2020.  A good worldwide disruption like COVID will fuel innovation and people come up with new and creative ways to do things that established entities are too slow or dumb to figure out.  If it wasn't for all the death, suffering, and higher rates of bad things, I'd be a fan.   
 
If Ms. Smith chose not to get her shot, I'd feel sad for her family, wish she had made other choices, but respect her agency.  If given a chance to do so respectfully, I'd use her sad tale as a motivator for the next umpteen vaccine-hesitant folks I came across. 
Because, again and forever, the vaccine is wildly effective.  The Ms.' Smiths of the world can get the shot and be like 288 times LESS likely to get sick or die of COVID, no matter who gives it to them, or which variant is given. 
 
First time I've laughed in 18 months.  Thanks!  And consider your comment stolen by me!
 
That's basically why I've worn a mask since the very start.
 
Best dang summary of a complex topic I've seen all year.  Stealing this too.

I have consistently worn my mask as required by my work, and by all governmental mandates long before the First Presidency spoke on the matter. I do this despite knowing that:
1. Masks ARE effective, and
2. Mask mandates are NOT effective.
If you search on Google for pre-2019 articles about the effectiveness of mask mandates you will see that there was universal agreement that while masks can reduce pathogen transmission, mask mandates rarely result in meaningful reductions in case load because we do not wear them 24x7. It's a bit like having a bag of black ink in a swimming pool. If you only keep the bag closed while people are in the pool, but open it when they are not, the end result will be a pool full of black ink. Hence, both statements above are true.
Below is a graph of three neighboring Southeastern states. One had a mask mandate and the others did not. Can you tell which is which? Nope, and nobody can. It's the same for all states that had mask mandates. You can't tell when the mandates started or see any meaningful reductions in hospitalizations or deaths when you look at the graphs. The pre-2019 science is still true in 2021 and will be going forward.
When I was a missionary in Japan long ago there were many people who would wear masks on the trains and in public places, but the medical advice we were given was that it was not necessary because it was not effective overall in reducing case load. Funny how we still see the same results today, but we act as if something has changed.
It is these types of sudden changes in the recommended "science" that has reduced confidence in our current health leaders, and unfortunately possibly in those that repeat their false advice even if it is done with good intentions. Nevertheless, I wear my mask at church and in my calling 'religiously' because I'd rather promote unity than fight the battle over the effectiveness of the advice.

Answer: In July 2020, Alabama added a statewide mask mandate to its already stringent lockdown measures. Florida and Georgia never had mask mandates. Georgia was decried as an "experiment in human sacrifice" when Governor Kemp lifted lockdown restrictions in April 2020. Despite this, all three states followed the same trajectory.
 

In my defense, public school rewards you for coming to school, even when sick. 

For those who may be interested, here is a brief summary of what's happening where I live.
After no active cases of community transmission at all since June last year, at about lunch time on Thursday our Chief Minister announced that a student at a large school had tested positive for covid. At that press conference, on the basis of that one single case, he announced a lock-down for the whole territory. (bSee below for a summary of what the lockdown involves.) By late Thursday afternoon, the number of cases had grown to 4 and today it is 9. As a result of the lockdown, there was no church on Sunday. Our Stake Conference, scheduled for the weekend of 28 - 29 August is now in doubt. Even if our Stake Conference goes ahead, attendance at the Sunday session will be limited to 260 people and will be limited to those who have pre-booked tickets. When the sacrament is passed, the Deacons all wear masks and they use small tongs to pick up a piece of bread and drop it into the recipients hands. Ever since we started having face to face church again last November, people are stronly encouraged to sign in using an app that every shop and business and organisation in the whole Territory is using. 
 
People are being asked to stay at home to assist in our response to positive cases of COVID-19 in the ACT.
The lockdown restrictions came into effect from 5:00pm Thursday 12 August 2021, for 7 days.
These restrictions are to help slow the spread of the virus and allow contact tracers to do their work.
The restrictions will also ensure that we don’t put additional pressure on our health services.
The six essential reasons you can leave your home during this lockdown are:
to buy essential groceries and medicine to access essential healthcare including in-home care for essential work to exercise outdoors for one hour per day in your region to get a COVID-19 test to get a COVID-19 vaccination. You can view more details on the reasons you can leave home here.
Essential retail will remain open for the duration of the lockdown. We encourage all Canberrans to buy only what they need, maintain social distancing and be considerate.
Anyone aged 12 years and over must wear a mask at all times upon leaving home. For some people this is not possible. For full details on face masks and exemptions here.
You should stay up to date on the evolving situation on this website.

Your post could’ve come Word for Word out of my lunch buddy. We would just have to replace this paragraph with “ I got tired of my fiancé bringing it up.“  😁

Some brand new and concerning COVID vaccine information:  https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00392-3/fulltext
It's a bit of a technical read, but the bottom line is that it appears that the currently approved US vaccines actually result in the production of some antibodies that facilitate infection with the Delta strain of the virus. Luckily for now, the neutralizing antibodies are still eventually overwhelming the facilitating antibodies so vaccinated people are recovering but this is a concern for future variants.
This information also helps explain why most vaccinated people will likely get the Delta variant at some point.
It also explains why unvaccinated people are statistically more likely to catch COVID from a vaccinated person.  Perhaps the vaccinated should stop pointing fingers since they are the greater statistical danger to others?

This is why I have a hard time with how things are happening with Covid. The contrast between Uttar Pradesh and the US is astounding and puzzling. If Covid is as dangerous as some say -- without a vaccine -- then Uttar Pradesh should be closer to the statistics of the US. With half the population vaccinated and still so many cases and deaths it makes you wonder what is wrong in the US.
This actually gives evidence to the contrary of the relation to vaccine and Covid.

I've changed my mind on getting the vaccine as well. Why...? Follow the prophet.
I recognize and fully accept that some may feel specific revelation to do otherwise, or may simply interpret the messaging differently than I have. I used to think that way. I have changed my mind. For me.

Just for clarification, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is not based on traditional technology. It uses adenovirus vectors to produce spike proteins. It is simply a different version of the same principle behind mRNA vaccines.
Novavax and Covaxin are the two vaccines based upon more traditional protein sub-unit and whole virus technologies.

You are probably right, but I can't help but hope when you see statistics like this (as of Aug 5th, 2021) being completely ignored:
Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin:  Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated]
COVID Daily Cases: 26
COVID Daily Deaths: 3
The United States off Ivermectin: Population 331 Million [50.5% fully vaccinated]
COVID Daily Cases: 127,108
COVID Daily Deaths: 574
Let us look at other Ivermectin using areas of India with numbers from August 5, 2021, compiled by the JHU CSSE:
Delhi on Ivermectin: Population 31 Million [15% fully vaccinated]
COVID Daily Cases: 61
COVID Daily Deaths: 2
Uttarakhand on Ivermectin: Population 11.4 Million [15% fully vaccinated]
COVID Daily Cases: 24
COVID Daily Deaths: 0
Now look at an area of India that rejected Ivermectin (like Utah). Tamil Nadu announced they would reject Ivermectin and instead follow the dubious USA-style guidance of using Remdesivir. Knowing this, you might expect their numbers to be closer to the US, with more cases and more deaths. You would be correct. Tamil Nadu went on to lead India in COVID-19 cases.
Tamil Nadu continues to suffer for its choice to reject Ivermectin. As a result, the Delta variant continues to ravage their citizens while it was virtually wiped out in the Ivermectin-using states. Likewise, in the United States, without Ivermectin, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated continue to spread the Delta variant like wildfire.
Tamil Nadu off Ivermectin: Population 78.8 Million [6.9% fully vaccinated]
COVID Daily Cases: 1,997
COVID Daily Deaths: 33

https://www.ksl.com/article/50223009/dire-straits-doctor-says-morale-in-utah-hospitals-as-low-as-ever-state-reports-897-new-cases
The saddest part of Utah's struggles with COVID is that a statewide mandate for Ivermectin use from Governor Cox, and a simple statement of support from trusted leaders for this safe, low-cost, and effective treatment could turn things around in a short time. States in India learned this lesson, but apparently states in America can't. Instead Utah is needlessly tearing itself apart with increasing vaccine mandate pressures.
The frontline COVID care doctors that use Ivermectin to treat patients swear by it. Those who don't use it for treatment say it doesn't work. Can't people decide for themselves?
 

 
 

We were on invermectin.  I would say it was quite effective.  I had a couple of bad days (scale of 1-10 a 3.)  None while on ivermectin.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50223009/dire-straits-doctor-says-morale-in-utah-hospitals-as-low-as-ever-state-reports-897-new-cases
The saddest part of Utah's struggles with COVID is that a statewide mandate for Ivermectin use from Governor Cox, and a simple statement of support from trusted leaders for this safe, low-cost, and effective treatment could turn things around in a short time. States in India learned this lesson, but apparently states in America can't. Instead Utah is needlessly tearing itself apart with increasing vaccine mandate pressures.
The frontline COVID care doctors that use Ivermectin to treat patients swear by it. Those who don't use it for treatment say it doesn't work. Can't people decide for themselves?
 

 
 

If we're getting technical, the commandment is not Thou shalt not murder.  It is "Thou shalt not kill", correct?  
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/ex/20?lang=eng

In my view "THOU" shalt not kill, does not include the same restriction on the commandment giver. As the Lord and giver of life, He can call his children back to His presence whenever he deems necessary, and he can order his servants to perform the action of taking it. I believe that in my pre-mortal life I agreed completely to those terms as part of coming to earth.

Medical note: On June 25, 2021 Dr. Robert W Malone, MD (a key mRNA technology developer) tweeted that the "U.S. Federal Government doesn't possess the data to calculate transmissibility and thus no vaccination target can foretell 'Herd Immunity'. Then today, Sir Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group stated that it is unlikely that the U.K. can ever achieve herd immunity because variants are easily infecting currently vaccinated people. So, how can both statements be true? Who can contradict the First Presidency once they have spoken? Or, maybe it's not a contradiction as much as a misunderstanding of what they are saying and how it should be applied?
I note this not to undermine trust in the First Presidency's statement, but to illustrate that their statements and recommendations can and do change as necessary. In the end, just as the First Presidency initially stated, it is our responsibility to determine our medical care - not theirs. In that light, prayerfully and carefully evaluating your medical decisions and reaching a conclusion to not use mRNA vaccines is indeed as much "following the Prophet", as getting the vaccine if that's the conclusion one reached. Let's not tear our unity apart based on our own interpretations.