Jana Riess Directly, Openly And Publicly Opposes Elder Nelson

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm aware that this poster has a rather substantial following that includes some Church members.

 

While this is not the first time I have found her remarks unpalatable, it is the first occasion I've noticed when she has given direct, point-by-point criticism of a public address given by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve (there may have been other occasions; I don't follow her blog closely enough to know).

 

While acknowledging that she has every right to express and seek to persuade others to her views on this matter, I will say that if a writer came out in such direct and public opposition to a speech given by a member of the Twelve in his capacity as an apostle of Jesus Christ, it would more than give me pause, even if I liked and generally agreed with the writer.

 

The subject -- or shall I say the target? -- of her blog post is an Aug. 14 BYU Summer Commencement address reported here by my colleague Marianne Holman.

 

“God is the Father of all men and women,” Elder Nelson taught. “They are His children. It was He who ordained marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Marriage was not created by human judges or legislators. It was not created by think tanks or by popular votes, or by oft-quoted bloggers or pundits. It was not created by lobbyists. Marriage was created by God.”

 

Objecting to Elder Nelson's casting of defending marriage within the context of discipleship, Riess wrote:

 

Well, here’s a concept: I can be a disciple of Christ and a supporter of nontraditional marriage. In fact, I can support nontraditional marriage precisely because I am a follower of that good shepherd, the one who preached compassion.

 

I suppose that here, as is so often the case, definitions make a great deal of difference.

 

To be a disciple of Christ means, of course, to follow Him. As taught in the Church of Jesus Christ, that entails receiving and striving to live by His word as imparted through His authorized servants in scripture, both ancient and modern, and through the inspired teachings and warnings of His servants who live today.

 

This holds true with regard to current affairs as much as anything else.

 

And it won't do to rationalize that Elder Nelson is merely going off on his own political opinions, as his words reflect what always has been consistently and unanimously taught by the apostles and prophets and, as noted above, has not changed nor will it change, despite current social and political pressure.

 

In fact, I can support nontraditional marriage precisely because I am a follower of that good shepherd, the one who preached compassion.

 

By implication, this unjustly accuses the Elder Nelson and his colleagues of not being compassionate. On the contrary, amidst the upheaval in recent times, the Brethren have been as compassionate as they could reasonably be expected to be while maintaining the boundaries of the Lord's laws and commandments and being true to their calling as watchmen on the tower. Among other things, the Church website on same-sex attraction abundantly demonstrates that compassion.

 

I agree with much of what Elder Nelson said about marriage in general. It is the foundation of a happy and enduring family life. It’s a partnership of shared goals, mutual loyalty, and the cultivation of each individual’s gifts. The family can be eternal.

Yes to all those things.

 

Here is an instance of equivocation. As Riess well knows, neither Elder Nelson nor the Church of Jesus Christ nor God recognize any form of same-gender sexual relationship as a marriage. As noted in the quote above, marriage was created by God and it cannot be redefined or altered by legislative edict or judicial fiat.

 

But I cannot agree with his unyielding determination to restrict the institution of marriage to a man and a woman only.

Nor can I abide the us-versus-them mentality that I sense here, pitting LDS Church members as sacred remnants in a world gone bad. Elder Nelson even goes so far as to quote Paul about the last days in which how blasphemers, lovers of pleasure, disobedient boasters, and the prideful will appear to carry the moment while lovers of Jesus Christ suffer persecution.

 

As much as it might make some people uncomfortable, it is the responsibility of apostles and prophets to teach, warn and admonish. Heaven help us if they ever cease to do that.

 

 

At the end of the talk, after Elder Nelson has spoken strongly against gay marriage (and subtly conflated that form of committed marriage with pornography, adultery, and sexual sin), he goes out of his way to remind listeners to treat gay people with “malice toward none, with charity for all.”

We are to value them as children of God, as our brothers and sisters, while resisting “efforts to change divine doctrine. It is not for man to change.”

In other words, Elder Nelson recommends that we do everything in our power to deny LGBT people their civil right to marriage; emphasize at every opportunity that their relationships are an abomination in the eyes of God; and then reassure them that for all that, they’re probably really nice people and we just love them so much.

 

The sneering tone here is obnoxious.

 

Again, on this matter the prophets and apostles have been as compassionate as they can be under the circumstances.

 

Obviously, I disagree with Elder Nelson’s approach to this issue. Same-sex marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage but an expansion of its definition.

See Elder Nelson quote above. Mortals cannot rightly alter what God has created.

 

And while I agree with him that “history is not our judge; a secular society is not our judge; God is our judge” I am also aware that in this case, secular society may be well ahead of my own church in its compassion toward those who are different.

 

 

Blessedly, it is not Jana Riess's church to alter as she desires. The Church belongs to Him Whose name it bears.

 

I'm disposed to repeat what I've said on this board before: Faced with the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets and apostles.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I'm aware that this poster has a rather substantial following that includes some Church members.

 

While this is not the first time I have found her remarks unpalatable, it is the first occasion I've noticed when she has given direct, point-by-point criticism of a public address given by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve (there may have been other occasions; I don't follow her blog closely enough to know).

 

While acknowledging that she has every right to express and seek to persuade others to her views on this matter, I will say that if a writer came out in such direct and public opposition to a speech given by a member of the Twelve in his capacity as an apostle of Jesus Christ, it would more than give me pause, even if I liked and generally agreed with the writer.

 

The subject -- or shall I say the target? -- of her blog post is an Aug. 14 BYU Summer Commencement address reported here by my colleague Marianne Holman.

 

 

Objecting to Elder Nelson's casting of defending marriage within the context of discipleship, Riess wrote:

 

I suppose that here, as is so often the case, definitions make a great deal of difference.

 

To be a disciple of Christ is, means, of course, to follow Him. As taught in the Church of Jesus Christ, that entails receiving and striving to live by His word as imparted through His authorized servants in scripture, both ancient and modern, and through the inspired teachings and warnings of His servants who live today.

 

This holds true with regard to current affairs as much as anything else.

 

And it won't do to rationalize that Elder Nelson is merely going off on his own political opinions, as his words reflect what always has been consistently and unanimously taught by the apostles and prophets and, as noted above, has not changed nor will it change, despite current social and political pressure.

 

By implication, this unjustly accuses the Elder Nelson and his colleagues of not being compassionate. On the contrary, amidst the upheaval in recent times, the Brethren have been as compassionate as they could reasonably be expected to be while maintaining the boundaries of the Lord's laws and commandments and being true to their calling as watchmen on the tower. Among other things, the Church website on same-sex attraction abundantly demonstrates that compassion.

 

Here is an instance of equivocation. As Riess well knows, neither Elder Nelson nor the Church of Jesus Christ nor God recognize any form of same-gender sexual relationship as a marriage. As noted in the quote above, marriage was created by God and it cannot be redefined or altered by legislative edict or judicial fiat.

 

As much as it might make some people uncomfortable, it is the responsibility of apostles and prophets to teach, warn and admonish. Heaven help us if they ever cease to do that.

 

 

The sneering tone here is obnoxious.

 

Again, on this matter the prophets and apostles have been as compassionate as they can be under the circumstances.

 

See Elder Nelson quote above. Mortals cannot rightly alter what God has created.

 

 

Blessedly, it is not Jana Riess's church to alter as she desires. The Church belongs to Him Whose name it bears.

 

I'm disposed to repeat what I've said on this board before: Faced with the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets and apostles.

 

Good for her.  Not all of us agree that God has made his will clear regarding the definition of marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

Good for her.  Not all of us agree that God has made his will clear regarding the definition of marriage.

Faced with the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets and apostles.

[Boanerges]

While not a fan or "follower" of Jana Riess (I have read a couple of her other blog entries), I do agree with her that one can be a disciple of Christ and not necessarily agree with every word spoken the prophet or apostles - or in this case support same sex marriage. The church is going through some growing pains at the moment and a large part of that is because as an institution we must be able to deal with - and allow - diversity of thought. Supporting same sex marriage, or at least being unwilling to fight against it, does not make one an apostate. The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Doctrine of Christ as it is called in the Book of Mormon and as was recently referenced in a great talk by Elder Chistofferson, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng , is really quite simple and does not require one to embrace a set of Pharisaical rules. By the way, that same talk by Elder Christofferson offers some great insight into his take on the Apostleship. 

[The Nehor]

Good for her.  Not all of us agree that God has made his will clear regarding the definition of marriage.

What avenue of telling you this has God not used other than an angel appearing and beating it into your skull with a rubber chicken?

[rockpond]

Faced with the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets and apostles.

 

Me too... when they preach the Gospel of Christ.

 

Sorry, I don't see Elder Nelson's use of a commencement address to add to his anti-gay army as the gospel of Christ.

[rockpond]

What avenue of telling you this has God not used other than an angel appearing and beating it into your skull with a rubber chicken?

 

There has been no revelation from God regarding gay marriage.

[The Nehor]

There has been no revelation from God regarding gay marriage.

Lol!!!!

Oh wait......you are serious? That is even funnier.

[Scott Lloyd]

While not a fan or "follower" of Jana Riess (I have read a couple of her other blog entries), I do agree with her that one can be a disciple of Christ and not necessarily agree with every word spoken the prophet or apostles - or in this case support same sex marriage. The church is going through some growing pains at the moment and a large part of that is because as an institution we must be able to deal with - and allow - diversity of thought. Supporting same sex marriage, or at least being unwilling to fight against it, does not make one an apostate. The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Doctrine of Christ as it is called in the Book of Mormon and as was recently referenced in a great talk by Elder Chistofferson, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng , is really quite simple and does not require one to embrace a set of Pharisaical rules. By the way, that same talk by Elder Christofferson offers some great insight into his take on the Apostleship. 

From the Elder Christofferson talk:

 

How does the Savior reveal His will and doctrine to prophets, seers, and revelators? He may act by messenger or in His own person. He may speak by His own voice or by the voice of the Holy Spirit—a communication of Spirit to spirit that may be expressed in words or in feelings that convey understanding beyond words (see 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 9:8). He may direct Himself to His servants individually or acting in council (see 3 Nephi 27:1–8).

 

The unanimity and consistency with which the apostles and prophets have repeatedly expressed themselves on the subject of the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman tells me that the Savior has indeed revealed His will to them.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Boanerges]

Lol!!!!

Oh wait......you are serious? That is even funnier.

 I think he is serious. Trying to make his argument seem silly is not proving anything. If there is a revelation, where is it?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Me too... when they preach the Gospel of Christ.

 

Sorry, I don't see Elder Nelson's use of a commencement address to add to his anti-gay army as the gospel of Christ.

Be nice if you could stick to the issues. Being anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay. Don't conflate the 2. Anyway that point is mostly irrelevant. The main point is that God through his prophets have told us that gay marriage is not the way. You just simply deny it really for no reason other than I guess to be PC.

[Boanerges]

From the Elder Christofferson talk:

 

The unanimity and consistency with which the apostles and prophets have repeatedly expressed themselves on the subject of the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman tells me that the Savior has indeed revealed His will to them.

 Ah, but they are not necessarily unanimous. Look at which of them have not spoken on the issue (Including Elder Christofferson).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 I think he is serious. Trying to make his argument seem silly is not proving anything. If there is a revelation, where is it?

The family proclamation and the several GC talks on the subject. Something need not be canonized to be official or scripture.

[Scott Lloyd]

 I think he is serious. Trying to make his argument seem silly is not proving anything. If there is a revelation, where is it?

Again, from the Christofferson talk:

 

a communication of Spirit to spirit that may be expressed in words or in feelings that convey understanding beyond words

 

This phrasing affirms that a communication from God need not be published or even written down to qualify as a revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

 Ah, but they are not necessarily unanimous. Look at which of them have not spoken on the issue (Including Elder Christofferson).

"The Family: a Proclamation to the World," which, among other things, defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, was signed individually and collectively by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It has been reaffirmed many times over the years.

[Boanerges]

"The Family: a Proclamation to the World," which, among other things, defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, was signed individually and collectively by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It has been reaffirmed many times over the years.

 

Other than the proclamation, which I do believe may have been inspired but I do not believe is "scripture," which individual apostles never speak on the issue publicly? When you figure that out you will see there are more that don't than do.

[ksfisher]

"The Family: a Proclamation to the World," which, among other things, defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, was signed individually and collectively by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It has been reaffirmed many times over the years.

 

I wish I could give more than one rep point for this.

[rockpond]

Being anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay.

 

I disagree.  Many others do as well.  But I know the Church desperately wants to be viewed as NOT anti-gay.

[ELF1024]

If there is a revelation, where is it?

 

I would have thought that Romans 1 was fairly clear...

[Scott Lloyd]

Other than the proclamation, which I do believe may have been inspired but I do not believe is "scripture," which individual apostles never speak on the issue publicly? When you figure that out you will see there are more that don't than do.

I would be extremely surprised if you could produce any indication from Elder Christofferson or others of the Twelve that indicates he or they disagree with their Brethren on the subject of the definition of marriage.

 

The very notion is difficult-to-impossible to take seriously.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

I think he is serious. Trying to make his argument seem silly is not proving anything. If there is a revelation, where is it?

Sealed in the secret First Presidency vault.

Of course the clear and unanimous word of the Brethren on the matter for decades suggests the revelation has been given multiple times.

But if we want to play the "need a canonized revelation for everything" card missions are optional for young men, every member is not a missionary, blacks never got the Priesthood, polygamy is still allowed, seventies are still a local office, and the United Order should never have been dissolved.

It is amazing how this argument only shows up when the person in question disagrees with something and never applied as a general principle.

[rockpond]

"The Family: a Proclamation to the World," which, among other things, defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, was signed individually and collectively by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It has been reaffirmed many times over the years.

 

It doesn't define it.  It says that it is ordained of God.  There's a difference.

 

"WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

 

I understand how the Brethren frequently interpret it, but the lack of an actual definition is important for when, several decades down the road, the Church changes its position on this.

[The Nehor]

Ah, but they are not necessarily unanimous. Look at which of them have not spoken on the issue (Including Elder Christofferson).

To my knowledge he has also never publicly taken a position on child pornography. Guess that issue is still up in the air too?

Edited August 21, 2014 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

I understand how the Brethren frequently interpret it, but the lack of an actual definition is important for when, several decades down the road, the Church changes its position on this.

Good thing you have God's will figured out in advance. Like the Nephites getting rid of the Paw of Moses early because they knew it was going to go away I am sure you will blessed as they were for defying the prophets. Wait, am I remembering that story right?

[rockpond]

Well, this topic has been done to death.  So I'm out.  I just wanted to give my public approval for the Jana Riess article that Scott brought to our attention.  Someone needed to say it and I'm glad she did.

 

I'll add my testimony that I believe the church will get there.  We'll see the day that our homosexual brothers and sisters can fully partake in God's plan of happiness for His children.

 

Take care!