Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Jana Riess Directly, Openly And Publicly Opposes Elder Nelson


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

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!

The topic of a relatively popular blogger and professed member of the Church openly and defiantly opposing a member of the Quorum of the Twelve speaking in his capacity as an apostle of Christ has not been done to death.

 

As I said, I find that more than a little disturbing.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted

As far as I can tell, most LDS here openly reject Elder Nelson's views on the Big Bang and other aspects of the Creation and Fall.  And yet we are repeatedly told that such differences of opinion are welcome and accepted in the Church.

 

And now we're supposed to get all worked up about someone disagreeing about something else he said? :unknw:

Disagreeing with an off the cuff comment is somewhat different then agreeing with an established apostolic consensus. I am not even convinced Elder Nelson was opposed to the Big Bang; he seemed more opposed to the idea that it was random which I doubt many LDS would believe.

Posted

The topic of a relatively popular blogger and professed member of the Church openly and defiantly opposing a member of the Quorum of the Twelve has not been done to death.

 

As I said, I find that more than a little disturbing.

 

If/when these teachings ever hurt (spiritually, mentally, and physically) you or someone you love, you might reassess that which you find disturbing.

Posted (edited)

If/when these teachings ever hurt (spiritually, mentally, and physically) you or someone you love, you might reassess that which you find disturbing.

Healing therapy is painful sometimes. But I'm grateful for it nevertheless.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted

Where did the idea that the teachings of God should never hurt come from? Anyone who finds them all pleasant is either near translation, incredibly ignorant, incredibly self-righteous, or very selective about the gospel.

 

Where do you get the idea that the teachings of God should hurt?  Difficult?...Sure.  Hard?...yes.  Endure to the end?...Absolutely.  But, hurt?  That I'm not so sure about. 

Posted

Where do you get the idea that the teachings of God should hurt?  Difficult?...Sure.  Hard?...yes.  Endure to the end?...Absolutely.  But, hurt?  That I'm not so sure about. 

1 Nephi 16:2-3

Posted

Where do you get the idea that the teachings of God should hurt?  Difficult?...Sure.  Hard?...yes.  Endure to the end?...Absolutely.  But, hurt?  That I'm not so sure about. 

 

 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

Matthew 10

Posted

1 Nephi 16:2-3

 

That scripture says "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."  Like I said...hard, but not hurt.  There is a difference. 

Posted

That scripture says "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."  Like I said...hard, but not hurt.  There is a difference. 

Mosiah 3: 19

 

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

 

The truth hurts.

Posted

Where do you get the idea that the teachings of God should hurt?  Difficult?...Sure.  Hard?...yes.  Endure to the end?...Absolutely.  But, hurt?  That I'm not so sure about. 

 

That scripture says "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."  Like I said...hard, but not hurt.  There is a difference. 

 

 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

 

Genesis 22

Posted

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

 

Surely we can ignore those troublesome prophets, seers, and revelators.  Sheesh, what do those old buggers know anyway!  Yup, if that burning bush does not appear directly before me and address me personally, I can continue to wait for further light and knowledge.  Until then, I will just go over here, put my fingers in my ears and hum loudly and if someone says something I don't like then I can begin screaming at the top of my lungs, "I can't hear you!".  

 

You do get how there is no foundation that supports your position except that you don't want to hear?

Posted (edited)

Wasn't she on some list of LDS blogger personalities who were up for church discipline or something? 

Edited by Duncan
Posted

I have to agree with Rockpond that this topic has been beaten to death.  Not just the topic of SSM, but whether members can support SSM in good faith.  

 

FWIW, I believe that Elder Nelson and many other church members oppose SSM from a sincere belief that it is harmful.  And I believe that Sister Riess and many other church members support SSM from a sincere belief that it is beneficial.  I expect to find members from both camps within my ward/stake for quite a while and hope there is room for both.  

 

Specific to the OP, I don't read Sister Reiss' remarks as negatively as Scott Lloyd.  I don't think she is trying to attack Elder Nelson (though her post can be read that way) as much as she is trying to carve a space for members like her who sincerely believe they are following the Savior in supporting SSM. 

Posted

Wasn't she on some list of LDS blogger personalities who were up for church discipline or something? 

 

I don't believe so.  Following Kate Kelly's excommunication I recall her posting concern that she and others would face discipline, but I haven't read anything indicating that her fears were justified. 

Posted

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.

Agreed. I struggle with his message and feel the talk was not appropriate given the venue. It reminds of Orrin hatch's use of a Memorial Day celebration to disparage the current administration.

Posted

Agreed. I struggle with his message and feel the talk was not appropriate given the venue. It reminds of Orrin hatch's use of a Memorial Day celebration to disparage the current administration.

 

So what are appropriate venues for apostles to teach the gospel?

Posted

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.

Labeling homosexuality as a sin sounds pretty anti-gay to me. Have you ever met anyone that is anti-ssm but pro-homosexuality?
Posted

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.

Is that the same with Inter-racial marriage being sin and Blacks being less valiant? because that too was a view spoken of often and by many in a prior generation.  just asking?

Posted

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

agreed.  Do we have all 15 men saying the same thing? if not according to Elder Anderson it is not doctrine and according to Elder Christofferson, hence not binding on the Church.  Elder Christofferson has a gay brother and is very sensitive to this issue.  I would love to hear his feelings on the matter?

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...