Jana Riess Directly, Openly And Publicly Opposes Elder Nelson

[The Nehor]

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?

Actually they were taught sporadically and by only a few of the apostles at best. Nice try though.

[Buckeye]

Yes, please, preach smooth things unto us instead.

 

The LDS members I know who support SSM do not find their support to be "smooth."  They face opposition and frequently disapproval from from loved ones and their fellow members.  And they say that they came to their views through extensive prayer and study.  They hold to their belief not because it is easy, but because they believe it is right. 

 

If it's wrong to paint all those who oppose SSM as bigots, it's just as wrong to paint all those who support SSM as lazy or disobedient.  Judge how you want to be judged. 

[DBMormon]

Actually they were taught sporadically and by only a few of the apostles at best. Nice try though.

actually we have a frist presidency statement from the brethren declaring such.  It is not a minority belief among the brethren at least not in the 1940's

[SmileyMcGee]

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

Was he speaking as an apostle? Was what he was saying official gospel doctrine?

There are many facets of the gospel that would be more fitting for commencement and he chose to beat a dead horse that had no relation to a graduation ceremony. It would have been just as odd for him to talk about priesthood ordination or paying fast offerings. Those are part of the gospel but they don't have anything to do with graduating and would not have fit the circumstances.

[Senator]

Sooo, you trying to build a case for church discipline?

[The Nehor]

The LDS members I know who support SSM do not find their support to be "smooth."  They face opposition and frequently disapproval from from loved ones and their fellow members.  And they say that they came to their views through extensive prayer and study.  They hold to their belief not because it is easy, but because they believe it is right. 

 

If it's wrong to paint all those who oppose SSM as bigots, it's just as wrong to paint all those who support SSM as lazy or disobedient.  Judge how you want to be judged.

I did not say they wanted to say smooth things; they just want the apostles to support them by either teaching something they like better (smooth things) or kindly shutting the hell up.

I am not going to play the silly false equivalency game of everyone's opinion is equally valid and important.

[DBMormon]

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

If we are using Paul, then we must also ask that women keep their mouths shut in Church

[Bob Crockett]

If we are using Paul, then we must also ask that women keep their mouths shut in Church

Umm.   That passage was retranslated by Joseph Smith to say women shouldn't lead the Church.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[The Nehor]

If we are using Paul, then we must also ask that women keep their mouths shut in Church

I have been saying that for years.

[DBMormon]

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.

I would like you to provide a statement in the 1940's that shows "any indication from others of the Twelve that indicates  or they disagree with their Brethren on the subject of blacks being less valiant?".

[DBMormon]

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

It is according to Elder Anderson  "The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

[Scott Lloyd]

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. 

So we're just going to overlook the part about it cutting them to the very center, then?

[Buckeye]

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?

 

I think Elder Christofferson's feelings are best found on the church's website mormonsandgays.com  And yes, because of his personal experience (his brother has been in a committed SS relationship for many years) I imagine that Elder Christofferson will be at the forefront of this issue for the church going forward. 

[Scott Lloyd]

It is according to Elder Anderson  "The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman -- and the corresponding opposition to the redefinition of marriage -- is not difficult to find in the teachings of the Brethren.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think Elder Christofferson's feelings are best found on the church's website mormonsandgays.com  And yes, because of his personal experience (his brother has been in a committed SS relationship for many years) I imagine that Elder Christofferson will be at the forefront of this issue for the church going forward. 

Can you link us to the specific part of the website where Elder Christofferson favors the redefinition of marriage?

 

Edited to add:

 

Never mind. I found this from Elder Christofferson on the website that shows just the opposite:

 

There shouldn’t be a perception or an expectation that the Church’s doctrines or position have changed or are changing. It’s simply not true, and we want youth and all people to understand that. The doctrines that relate to human sexuality and gender are really central to our theology. And marriage between a man and a woman, and the families that come from those marriages – that’s all central to God’s plan and to the opportunities that He offers to us, here and hereafter. So homosexual behavior is contrary to those doctrines – has been, always will be – and can never be anything but transgression. It’s something that deprives people of those highest expectations and possibilities that God has for us.

 

(Emphasis mine)

Edited August 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Boanerges, just wanted to draw your attention to my last post, which shows that Elder Christofferson has indeed spoken on this issue and that he is in agreement with his brethren and with the laws of God.

[EllenMaksoud]

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 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.

Jana Riess is not a Mormon, so why is she taken seriously? In spite of the fact that the church is rather stupid in assessing who I am, and see it as a great injustice,  I still support almost everything in the church.  I stay out of the SSM issue because I do not know how to resolve it. I am neither married nor is it likely that I will get married.

 

It is clear that she should not join the church as she can not support the doctrines.

 

And though I support the church, it is too painful to hear about certain issues all the time, so I left to either return to Islam or study Buddhisim

[Scott Lloyd]

To those who harbor the fanciful notion that one or more of the Brethren may be at odds with the others on the matter of the definition of marriage I commend this blog post, which pretty much decimates such wishful thinking.

[Buckeye]

Can you link us to the specific part of the website where Elder Christofferson favors the redefinition of marriage?

 

 

To be clear, I never suggested he favored SSM. 

[Buckeye]

To those who harbor the fanciful notion that one or more of the Brethren may be at odds with the others on the matter of the definition of marriage I commend this blog post, which pretty much decimates such wishful thinking.

 

Eternity is a long time.  If you believe the 14 fundamentals, then no current leader can justifiably say "never" because their authority ends when they die and future leaders will have full authority to override anything they said.

 

FWIW, I stand by my belief in Alma's teaching (and Christ's) that trees bear fruit according to their nature.  Once SSM is well established in the land we will have a good basis to judge whether the fruit is good or not.  I have confidence that the church will hold to the good, whatever that may be. 

[Scott Lloyd]

To be clear, I never suggested he favored SSM. 

Noted, and thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

 I have confidence that the church will hold to the good, whatever that may be. 

I too am confident that will happen -- and that the Church leaders, being wise as serpents yet harmless as doves, will continue to detect the sophistry whereby people call evil good and good evil. Such a thing fulfills prophecy, as a matter of fact.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

Jana Riess is not a Mormon, so why is she taken seriously? In spite of the fact that the church is rather stupid in assessing who I am, and see it as a great injustice,  I still support almost everything in the church.  I stay out of the SSM issue because I do not know how to resolve it. I am neither married nor is it likely that I will get married.

 

It is clear that she should not join the church as she can not support the doctrines.

 

And though I support the church, it is too painful to hear about certain issues all the time, so I left to either return to Islam or study Buddhisim

 

she is a member of the Church

[Nevo]

I live in a country where there is no public debate over same-sex marriage. It is legal, and has been for most of a decade now. And I'm okay with that. The legislation defines marriage "for civil purposes" as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others," with the proviso that "officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs." I don't consider that the state's definition of marriage "for civil purposes" must be identical to my "religious" definition of marriage, as long as my religious beliefs are legally protected. 

 

I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of gay marriage by any stretch—I'm still old-fashioned enough to think that homosexuality is disordered and not really something to be embraced and celebrated—but I also don't think it's helpful for Church leaders to be claiming that anyone who supports gay marriage is not a (real) disciple of Christ. Yes, prophets are within their right to speak "hard things," but that sort of rhetoric is only going to push more good people out of the Church (and prevent others from coming in).

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of gay marriage by any stretch—I'm still old-fashioned enough to think that homosexuality is disordered and not really something to be embraced and celebrated—but I also don't think it's helpful for Church leaders to be claiming that anyone who supports gay marriage is not a (real) disciple of Christ. Yes, prophets are within their right to speak "hard things," but that sort of rhetoric is only going to push more good people out of the Church (and prevent others from coming in).

I, on the other hand, have never seen any lasting benefit to watering down the doctrines and teachings of the Church for the mere purpose of attracting converts or helping the disaffected to feel more comfortable. Sooner or later, the truth becomes obvious to them, and they end up feeling deceived.