Grunt

What makes the ivermectin that doctors prescribe different than the ivermectin in horse medicine? I find more irony in the crowd that says "they missed the mark, there AREN'T overwhelming issues with people taking ivermectin, but you still shouldn't take it even though it appears to work"

My wife would probably agree.

That isn't exactly accurate. The Church uses "may" and "doesn't automatically". It opens the door to the possibility of exceptions, but doesn't outright grant them. That said, I don't think they DO exist. They are never discussed because A: Many people agree with me that they don't exists, and B: because they are used as a distraction by pro-abortion folks. "I don't believe an innocent life should be taken." "Oh, so you believe a woman should endure the emotional trauma of carrying a child conceived in incest and rape? You hate women." "OK, so if I grant exceptions to incest and rape, you'll support legislation that criminalizes all other abortions?" "No, it's a woman's right to choose" "Then why are we talking about incest and rape, not abortion in general?"

I just don't believe there are exceptions.

If I cared what the world thought I wouldn't be in the church at all.

No, but you're saying people who don't feel the need to put artificial substances to protect them from a virus they don't feel they need protection from oppose vaccinations. I'm simply pointing out that isn't true. They don't care what other people do, they get numerous vaccinations, they just don't get THOSE vaccinations.

Why? The two vaccinations you mentioned are illnesses that you'll get even if you are vaccinated AND you're likely to recover with no lasting issues. We're talking about illnesses that are a blip on the radar for the VAST majority of people and the vaccine typically just lessens the symptoms for an illness you're going to catch anyway.

Classifying most these people as "anti-vaxxers" isn't accurate. They are anti-THIS-vax. They are hesitant to put something in their bodies that they either recognize the chances of them dying from the disease is tiny, they don't care to put a vaccine in their body when it's long-term effects are unknown, or a combination of those and/or other things. If you've already had COVID with no issues, why would you? If you're young with no health issues, why would you?

I spoke about it a little in the interview I gave about 8 months after I was baptized. I also often reference it in my talks. On the one hand I wish I'd entered the covenant sooner to have had a lifetime of growth, but on the other I'm so glad I wasn't born into it. I have the benefit of experience on both sides of the font. I know what the difference is.

I believe there are several new songs.

As a very happy non-member family who became a very happy member family, I can confirm that at least in my experience I didn't realize how much happier I could be.

I was probably one of the first pre-orders.

I feel for the woman. Not to the point I agree it's ok to kill her child.

I find this relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbsG68kVZGo

I gave a talk on this not too long ago. The research in writing it was very helpful to me.

And mental/emotional abuse.

Hey-o, now you're speaking my language. I've researched a bunch of religions. This year I've spent a considerable amount of time looking at Catholicism due to some questions I had. As I said in another thread, everything in its time. I'm so behind the curve being a convert, but the advantage is I had to fight for every sliver of testimony.

I don't recommend that route either, BUT......

The horse paste crowd has had considerable overdoses, if the news is correct, with no reported serious or lasting injury.

I don't know. It's hard to really doubt your doubts, right? Personally, I don't believe doubt is something you can control. That's why so many people get spun out by things they desperately want to get past. I make a rational decision to act faithfully as though my doubts were wrong. When able, I make intentional studies and prayers in areas that my issue(s) lie(s) in, and use faithful church sources or neutral historical documents. I love that talk, though. It's one of my favorites.

Personally, I believe it is a personal distinction. I had/have concern about some of the statements the Church has made, but I don't know if it's exactly "doubt" because I have yet to reconcile them with either what I know to be true or doctrine. There are other things I may have "doubt" about. They aren't consistent with my beliefs or some understanding. I don't complain about these things publicly, nor do I discuss them privately unless it's with intent to gain more light. (example: previous struggles with King Follett's Discourse that I've discussed here. I would ask and discuss them with friends to gain insight, but not denounce them). While I don't speak out or complain against the Church on these issues, and I follow them obediently, I would still consider them doubts.

I don't see anything ironic about it at all. They aren't related in any way beyond the injections.

I agree 100%. "Excluded" was probably the wrong word to use. Maybe unintentionally making things more difficult?

Thanks. It was the "middle ground" that hung me up, since middle ground to me implies compromise. Compromise generally involves giving something up in the interest of amity or agreement. I'm not disagreeing with your statement, but personally probably would have instead said something about prayerfully and carefully examining the doctrine to ensure the "line" is drawn in the right place. I suppose I only take notice and split hairs because this is a very serious issue for me personally. I don't want to compromise on God's will. However, we should make very certain we haven't accidentally excluded our brothers and sisters from all of Christ's earthly light due to cultural or misdrawn lines. I'm not sure I made sense, so I'll try again if I haven't done well.

Could you explain what you mean by "middle ground"?