President Nelson Speaks to Young Adults in Las Vegas - Feb 17, 2018

[Gray]

52 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That does appear to be true, considering the number of children that are the result of un-married unions (including several good LDS I've known who had unmarried parents at the time they were born).

At the very least, the "evil spirit" theory would more logically lead to evil spirits doing everything they could to either give people homosexual urges, or to get them to not have heterosexual sex. 

This sort of thinking seems like a holdover from an age when people seemed to need to ascribe individual natural phenomena to a specific God who was pulling levers behind the scenes. God of thunder, god of fire, god of the harvest, etc.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Gray

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If a full transcript is not released by the church it will be interesting to see how long it takes for a certain website to obtain a copy and publish it.

rumour has it they are transcribing the menu at a Mission President Seminar held in Quito, Ecuador in 1989. It's finally the proof we need that Elder Gene Cook likes Flan

[kllindley]

22 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It wasn't a "rhetorical question" if you were trying to make a logical argument for the "evil spirit" theory of where sexual urges come from.  The idea that there are righteous and evil spirits battling over whether or not we are attracted to men or women (and whether or not we are married to that man or woman) raises a lot of un-rhetorical questions that people usually ignore.

You seem to be the one insisting on adding the word attraction. I didn't see President Nelson or rchorse say anything about attraction. Projection?

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, rchorse said:

Talk about jumping to negative conclusions based on a few words...

My point was that President Nelson's comments are applicable to all sorts of sexual sin and not a direct shot at gays. I wasn't intending to offer an in-depth exposition on how adultery happens. It was a rhetorical question.

But I imagine you knew that already.

I guess if Pres. Nelson is using "love" euphemistically, then you might have a point. But if love is not a euphemism for sxual activity (which is what many seem to be claiming) then "LOVE" is sometimes a tool for satan. I have a hard time understanding how LOVE is Satan's tool. Actions/behaviors/appetites- sure, I get how Satan can use those. But I can't see how he would use real "love". 

If Pres. Nelson IS using love as a euphemism then he might want to consider speaking with more clarity. 

[cinepro]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You seem to be the one insisting on adding the word attraction. I didn't see President Nelson or rchorse say anything about attraction. Projection?

Here is what President Nelson is quoted as saying:

Quote

The prophet explained that as human beings we all have appetites necessary for our survival. “These appetites are absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life. So, what does the adversary do?” He asked. “He attacks us through our appetites. He tempts us to eat things we should not eat, to drink things we should not drink, and to love as we should not love!”

If "love as we should not love" isn't referring to sexual attraction, then what is it referring to?  What other kind of "love" is there that Satan would use to attack us, and what other kind of "love" is there that is equated with an "appetite"?  What other kind of "love" is "necessary for our survival"?

Edited February 20, 2018 by cinepro

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Here is what President Nelson is quoted as saying:

If "love as we should not love" isn't referring to sexual attraction, then what is it referring to?  What other kind of "love" is there that Satan would use to attack us, and what other kind of "love" is there that is equated with an "appetite"?  What other kind of "love" is "necessary for our survival"?

Well there are three verbs in a row. Parallelism. Eat is an action, not an attraction. Drink is an action, not an attraction. It would make sense that love here is an action, not an attraction. Even if you want to focus on the sexual aspect, why would he jump to attraction after listing two specific actions? 

Being tempted to misuse the appetites we have is different than being tempted by having appetites. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Think about what you are saying here.  What is adultery or fornication, and how does it "happen"?

You are suggesting that our desire to have sex with another person comes from the influence of disembodied spirits, either angels or devils, that exist among us and at inopportune times somehow dip their fingers into our brains and monkey with the works to make us feel sexually attracted to someone.  Is that really the best explanation for what happens?

What happens then, when a man and woman are engaged?  From what I understand, it is often common for two people, even devout LDS, to feel intense sexual attraction during courtship.  So, according to your theory, these attractions are being instigated by Satan and his minions.

But then they get married, and that night, they still feel the exact same attractions.  Only now you are suggesting that at the point they got married, the baton was passed from all the evil spirits hanging around to the Holy Ghost who is now encouraging them to have righteous intimacy.  

Everything is fine with the righteous spirits juicing up the couple for each other to make them want to have as much sex as possible (sometimes the righteous spirits are hitting the button on one half of the couple a little more than the other, but that's nothing a little counseling can't help with), until one day, one of the partners sees an attractive person that they are not married to.  Suddenly, the righteous spirits are shoved out of the way, and the evil spirits return and start hitting the exact same buttons to make them feel like having sex with this other person.  But then they go home that night and their spouse is looking pretty good, and the good spirits rush back in and hit the "sex" button that was previously being pushed by the bad spirits.

Does that sound like a good explanation for how adultery happens?  (And if satan's minions had that kind of power, why wouldn't they just make everyone attracted to the same sex?  Why bother with hetersexual attractions which can lead to marriage and procreation according to God's plan when they could short-circuit God's plan and win just by giving people homosexual urges?  Although it occurs to me I may have been the first person to ever realize this and the spirits that have been haunting my office trying to get me to look at the picture of the French figure skater whose top fell off might be reading this even as I type.  What have I done..?)

 

Anyway, how about this as an alternate explanation about how "adultery happens"?  Our bodies are an intricate, massively complex system which includes a massively complex, hormone riddled sex drive that is both very basic, and very complex, but which operates solely without any influence from supernatural forces.  And while there is a lot that appears to be common in the human experience when it comes to sex, there is a lot that is unique and not well understood.  But "adultery happens" from the exact same drives and urges from which married sex happens.  It is no different, except that it is directed to someone they are not married to, and they don't resist the urge.   Just as sometimes married people have to control their urges to have sex (health reasons, staying at the in-laws, etc.), unmarried people also have to control those urges. 

Is that really too far-fetched?

I want to be an angel or devil in this scenario. That would be so much fun.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

If a full transcript is not released by the church it will be interesting to see how long it takes for a certain website to obtain a copy and publish it.

I hope it does not delay their publishing the new COB parking guidelines.

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I guess if Pres. Nelson is using "love" euphemistically, then you might have a point. But if love is not a euphemism for sxual activity (which is what many seem to be claiming) then "LOVE" is sometimes a tool for satan. I have a hard time understanding how LOVE is Satan's tool. Actions/behaviors/appetites- sure, I get how Satan can use those. But I can't see how he would use real "love". 

If Pres. Nelson IS using love as a euphemism then he might want to consider speaking with more clarity. 

He can use broken love. Most of us know parents who keep their children from going out into the world out of fear of loneliness or an over possessive spouse or a stalker hurting someone with their inexhaustible need for attention. All claim they are acting out of love. Defective love is one of the devil’s best tools.

[clarkgoble]

55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I guess if Pres. Nelson is using "love" euphemistically, then you might have a point. But if love is not a euphemism for sxual activity (which is what many seem to be claiming) then "LOVE" is sometimes a tool for satan. I have a hard time understanding how LOVE is Satan's tool. Actions/behaviors/appetites- sure, I get how Satan can use those. But I can't see how he would use real "love". 

Love is an ambiguous term. Assuming it must mean "true love" (whatever that actually means) seems dubious. But go look at the silliness young twenty somethings do when they think they're in love and it's not hard to see how Satan can use that. You can always just say, "that's not love" but then we're at the "no true Scotsman" problem. In any case when interpreting someone a bit of hermeneutic charity is usually in order. However often we see the manifestation of confirmation bias where we notice the things that confirm our pre-established views and ignore the bits that don't.

As kllindley noted above, given the properties of the items in his list, it requires breaking the pattern of the list to make this interpretation. Now it's possible Nelson misspoke, but I think from the limited context we have it seems clear he means it broadly. Let's be honest. While LGBT issues are a problem for the Church, a bigger problem (in terms of membership) are singles never marrying but becoming sexually active or engaged and seriously dating people becoming sexually active. It was a problem when I was single and from everything I hear it's more of a problem now. Assuming everything is about LGBT distorts the many issues Pres. Nelson has to grapple with.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by clarkgoble

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I guess if Pres. Nelson is using "love" euphemistically, then you might have a point. But if love is not a euphemism for sxual activity (which is what many seem to be claiming) then "LOVE" is sometimes a tool for satan. I have a hard time understanding how LOVE is Satan's tool. Actions/behaviors/appetites- sure, I get how Satan can use those. But I can't see how he would use real "love". 

If Pres. Nelson IS using love as a euphemism then he might want to consider speaking with more clarity. 

This is where I get tripped up with his statement as well.  How is loving someone ever something we shouldn't do?  Or is he talking about love of things? 

[cinepro]

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Being tempted to misuse the appetites we have is different than being tempted by having appetites. 

 

As I pointed out, the idea that external forces are influencing us in that way is extremely problematic, regardless of whether you theorize they are influencing the "use" of our appetites or giving us the appetites to begin with. 

In the end, it's a distinction without a difference.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I have to agree.  It's unfortunate that he also may give the impression that someone who is born gay has unnatural human appetites (with his phrasing: "Satan turns natural human appetites into desires and actions that derail the best of spiritual intentions...").

 

Actually that sounds the opposite to me...(eating food is a natural desire, overeating derails health, etc.)

Edited February 20, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is where I get tripped up with his statement as well.  How is loving someone ever something we shouldn't do?  Or is he talking about love of things? 

He specifies Satan turning "natural human appetites into desires and actions".

All three of this things he listed (eat, drink, love) can be verbs or nouns.

(Just thinking more about this..)

Does Satan instill love in us?  Or is it lust?  

I think of love as coming only from God.

Edited February 20, 2018 by ALarson

[cinepro]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is where I get tripped up with his statement as well.  How is loving someone ever something we shouldn't do?  Or is he talking about love of things? 

He prefaces his comment by classifying these appetites as being "absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life."  In order for humanity to survive, we need to do three things: eat food, drink water, and have procreative sex.  So that limits how creative we can get in interpreting what "love" he was referring to.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

As I pointed out, the idea that external forces are influencing us in that way is extremely problematic, regardless of whether you theorize they are influencing the "use" of our appetites or giving us the appetites to begin with. 

In the end, it's a distinction without a difference.

 

No sillier then the concept of the Holy Ghost operating as a full time companion.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

He prefaces his comment by classifying these appetites as being "absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life."  In order for humanity to survive, we need to do three things: eat food, drink water, and have procreative sex.  So that limits how creative we can get in interpreting what "love" he was referring to.

Based on that reading and logic, we'd have to conclude that President Nelson is saying Satan tempts people to be other than heterosexual.

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

As I pointed out, the idea that external forces are influencing us in that way is extremely problematic, regardless of whether you theorize they are influencing the "use" of our appetites or giving us the appetites to begin with. 

In the end, it's a distinction without a difference.

 

So, if I understand, you don't believe that a devil exists or that he entices anyone?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Based on that reading and logic, we'd have to conclude that President Nelson is saying Satan tempts people to be other than heterosexual.

Nah, just a small shift on the Kinsey scale.

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He specifies Satan turning "natural human appetites into desires and actions".

All three of this things he listed (eat, drink, love) can be verbs or nouns.

(Just thinking more about this..)

Does Satan instill love in us?  Or is it lust?  

I think of love as coming only from God.

I find a big difference between "turn" and "instill." President Nelson only used one of them. 😉

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I find a big difference between "turn" and "instill." President Nelson only used one of them. 😉

Ok, I can see that.  So God instills these appetites (ie. love), but Satan turns them ...into desires and actions that derail derail the best of spiritual intentions.  

What do you think he's referring to when he states: "These appetites are absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life"?  What action involving love is "absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life" other than sex?

Edited February 20, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

Love makes people stick around and care for their children and other family members.  Without it, children would be abandoned st birth, women left on their own when pregnant, elderly parents abandoned, etc.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Love makes people stick around and care for their children and other family members.  Without it, children would be abandoned st birth, women left on their own when pregnant, elderly parents abandoned, etc.

True.  But those actions are not "absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life".

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok, I can see that.  So God instills these appetites (ie. love), but Satan turns them ...into desires and actions that derail derail the best of spiritual intentions.  

What do you think he's referring to when he states: "These appetites are absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life"?  What action involving love is "absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life" other than sex?

I think Calm answered that very well.

And I'm not against him talking about sex. I'm just arguing that he is talking about actions not attractions. 

I personally believe that my love for men is a Divine gift. It is not anything to be ashamed of or suppress or cure. At the same time, I do believe that any urge to act on that love sexually is a temptation I need to resist.

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I saw several FB posts about this on my social media feed this morning, and after reading more in context, I'm surprised anyone would think there's anything new or surprising in in what President Nelson is saying.  It doesn't strike me as Elder Nelson singling out or criticizing same-sex relationships in a greater manner or moreso than any other sexual behaviors or relationships that the Church considers to be inappropriate.

It seems to me that if you're a devout straight LDS young adult, you can (and most likely would) interpret Nelson's words as applying entirely to your straight predilections, and if you're a devout gay LDS young adult, you can (and mostly likely would) interpret Nelson's words as applying entirely to your gay predilections.

It's a shame that those that are over blowing this are focusing ONLY on the "love" part of Nelson's words.  I think it's also important that he spoke of food consumption and overeating.  While LDS culture/belief/practice does a great job emphasizing abstaining from alcohol and all forms of premarital sex, I think many Latter-day Saints (and I include myself as a former one in that designation) don't pay enough attention (or haven't historically) to the health advice about gluttony, abstaining from overeating, or reducing the consumption of meat.

Overall, from my perspective, any attempt to imply this talk is about any sort of "condemnation/indictment of gays and/or same-sex relationships" seems like a great over-exaggeration/distortion of Nelson's words.  While some critics may see value in trying to read mal-intent into every utterance from the new prophet's words, I don't find that helpful at all, and think it's best to avoid misrepresenting what's been said and focus instead on actual issues. 

I agree...he  doesn't necessarily come out and single out the LGBT community.  I am still on first page of this thread and hope to have a full transcript for me at the end of 3 pages...

Edited to add:  I don't envy Pres. Nelson...this is a tough time for his church..that being said..the first thing at this present time that a Prophet and apostles should desire...is to be precise..definite...and in unison.  Otherwise..this presidency is going to be the most difficult time.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Jeanne