Jana Riess Directly, Openly And Publicly Opposes Elder Nelson

Nevo · August 21, 2014

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.

I know what you're saying, but it seems to me that the scriptures also provide a precedent for going easy on "the weakest of all the saints." Take the Word of Wisdom or the doctrine of plural marriage, for example. Where would the Church be if it had taken a hard line on these things from day one? Would it have been worth it to lose most of the missionary harvest in Great Britain and Scandinavia during the defining decades of the 1840s and 1850s?

In Section 86, the Lord says: "Pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also [but rather] let the wheat and tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe" (vv. 6-7). Maybe Elder Nelson feels the harvest is fully ripe, but I'm not so sure. I think the Church may still have some growing left to do.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Nevo

toon · August 21, 2014

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.

I'm at a loss as to how the legal recognition of civil gay marriage waters down any church doctrine.

Rock_N_Roll · August 21, 2014

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).

:clapping:

Scott Lloyd · August 21, 2014

I'm at a loss as to how the legal recognition of civil gay marriage waters down any church doctrine.

As is made clear in the family proclamation and elsewhere, marriage as God ordained it is at the heart of the eternal progression of men and women. As Elder Christofferson said in the quotation I provided above, "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."

If this is accepted as true, it could not be pleasing to Heavenly Father to have something he ordained as holy corrupted by worldly thought and political dogma. And, given that, I should think He would want His servants in the leadership of the Church doing just as they are doing.

Scott Lloyd · August 21, 2014

I know what you're saying, but it seems to me that the scriptures also provide a precedent for going easy on "the weakest of all the saints." Take the Word of Wisdom or the doctrine of plural marriage, for example. Where would the Church be if it had taken a hard line on these things from day one? Would it have been worth it to lose most of the missionary harvest in Great Britain and Scandinavia during the defining decades of the 1840s and 1850s?

In Section 86, the Lord says: "Pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also [but rather] let the wheat and tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe" (vv. 6-7). Maybe Elder Nelson feels the harvest is fully ripe, but I'm not so sure. I think the Church may still have some growing left to do.

Gradual acceptance of new doctrine and practice -- such as the Word of Wisdom and plurality of wives -- is one thing. Acquiescing to the corruption of long-held beliefs and long-understood doctrines and commandments -- such as those relating to marriage -- is quite another. I can see the Lord going easy on his people with the former, granting them a time and space for transition and such, but expecting them to draw a distinct line with the latter.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

The Nehor · August 21, 2014

I'm at a loss as to how the legal recognition of civil gay marriage waters down any church doctrine.

It doesn't anymore then the repeal of prohibition watered down the Word of Wisdom. Some attempt to water down our doctrine by claiming it is wrong or temporary or misguided or whatever. It does galvanize these people a bit with perpetual fretting over how we are not in tune with common cultural and social mores and how we are going to become obsolete.

toon · August 21, 2014

If this is accepted as true, it could not be pleasing to Heavenly Father to have something he ordained as holy corrupted by worldly thought and political dogma. And, given that, I should think He would want His servants in the leadership of the Church doing just as they are doing.

I'm sure there are lots of worldly practices not pleasing to Heavenly Father, but that Church doctrine is not watered down by the fact that those practices may be legal and even civilally recognized.

I'm sure he would want His servants in the leadership of the Church to speak out and preach against those practices, but that doesn't mean Church doctrine requires opposition to the legalization or legal recognition of those practices.

toon · August 21, 2014

It doesn't anymore then the repeal of prohibition watered down the Word of Wisdom. Some attempt to water down our doctrine by claiming it is wrong or temporary or misguided or whatever. It does galvanize these people a bit with perpetual fretting over how we are not in tune with common cultural and social mores and how we are going to become obsolete.

And the repeal of prohibition did not water down the Word of Wisdom. Seems like the Word of Wisdom is as strong as ever, in fact, even stronger than pre-prohibition.

The Nehor · August 21, 2014

I'm sure there are lots of worldly practices not pleasing to Heavenly Father, but that Church doctrine is not watered down by the fact that those practices may be legal and even civilally recognized.

I'm sure he would want His servants in the leadership of the Church to speak out and preach against those practices, but that doesn't mean Church doctrine requires opposition to the legalization or legal recognition of those practices.

It doesn't require it but it also does not exclude it. In fact the Prophet was quite incensed with the Saints for helping to end Prohibition.

"With the help of the Lord to the very best of my ability, I warned this people not to vote for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. I warned them against lies that were being circulated to the effect that there was more drunkenness and more use of liquor than there had been when we did not have Prohibition. Millions of dollars of money, I am sure, was expended to have the Eighteenth Amendment repealed."

"I have never felt so humiliated in my life over anything as that the state of Utah voted for the repeal of Prohibition."

-Heber J. Grant

Utah was the second to last state to ratify the amendment before it was passed.

And the repeal of prohibition did not water down the Word of Wisdom. Seems like the Word of Wisdom is as strong as ever, in fact, even stronger than pre-prohibition.

It is possibly more in contrast to the rest of the world but it didn't strengthen it. It made breaking it easier. I work in drug and alcohol testing and recently was helping the state of Idaho with their program. The joke there is that when Mormons drink they REALLY drink. The LDS political elite there are not doing very well. I also get a little bit of an inside look at marijuana legalization's early effects. Other then a few hilarious ads I am not impressed:

The ads may be worth it though.

toon · August 21, 2014

My understanding is that, prior to prohibition, the Word of Wisdom wasn't considered a commandment and obedience was not a requirement for a temple recommend. The Church arguably considers obedience ot the Word of Wisdom much more seriously than it did pre-probibition. (I didn't say the repeal of prohibition, itself, strengthended it, only that it is "stronger" than pre-prohibition.)

Also, it's my understanding that pre-prohibition, we were a nation of drunkards. Yes, there are other substances to deal with today, and even the comsumption of alcohol is still a problem. But I think there's some evidence that we are a much more sober society today than we were in the 1700's and 1800's.

ksfisher · August 21, 2014

My understanding is that, prior to prohibition, the Word of Wisdom wasn't considered a commandment and obedience was not a requirement for a temple recommend.

Obedience to the Word of Wisdom became a requirement to receive a temple recommend in 1915 FYI.

ksfisher · August 21, 2014

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.

Perhaps then, we members, ought to let the apostles know which dead horses we don't want to hear about and what gospel subject is appropriate for whichever venue they happen to be speaking at. Because, clearly, they really don't know what they are doing and what is gospel and what isn't.

The Nehor · August 21, 2014

My understanding is that, prior to prohibition, the Word of Wisdom wasn't considered a commandment and obedience was not a requirement for a temple recommend. The Church arguably considers obedience ot the Word of Wisdom much more seriously than it did pre-probibition. (I didn't say the repeal of prohibition, itself, strengthended it, only that it is "stronger" than pre-prohibition.)

Also, it's my understanding that pre-prohibition, we were a nation of drunkards. Yes, there are other substances to deal with today, and even the comsumption of alcohol is still a problem. But I think there's some evidence that we are a much more sober society today than we were in the 1700's and 1800's.

The Word of Wisdom really started to get phased in as a Temple Recommend thing in the very late 1800s/very early 1900s. In 1902 Joseph F. Smith was telling local leaders to deny recommends to those with habitual problems but some leniency with the elderly who smoked or drank tea occasionally. In 1905 they said no one who violated the Word of Wisdom should be in a leadership position. In 1915 Joseph F. Smith stated outright that anyone violating the Word of Wisdom should not get a temple recommend (or receive or be advanced in the Priesthood). Heber J. Grant continued with that stance. Enforcement predated Prohibition.

I have no idea how we are doing compared to the past. I have never been able to find really good numbers. We are getting a little better at drunk driving which is a plus.

toon · August 21, 2014

Obedience to the Word of Wisdom became a requirement to receive a temple recommend in 1915 FYI.

So five years before prohibition, but well after the prohibition movement had begun to gain steam. I don't think this changes my point that repeal didn't water down the Word of Wisdom.

Hamba Tuhan · August 21, 2014

"With the help of the Lord to the very best of my ability, I warned this people not to vote for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. I warned them against lies that were being circulated to the effect that there was more drunkenness and more use of liquor than there had been when we did not have Prohibition. Millions of dollars of money, I am sure, was expended to have the Eighteenth Amendment repealed."

"I have never felt so humiliated in my life over anything as that the state of Utah voted for the repeal of Prohibition."

-Heber J. Grant

When I was studying in America, I took a number of Institute courses from Kenneth Godfrey. He told us that when he was serving as a stake president, Marion G. Romney had been assigned to his stake conference, and in those days he travelled to SLC to pick Pres. Romney up. In the car, Pres. Romney told him about a personal experience having to choose to follow Heber J. Grant when it had contradicted his deeply held political beliefs. He said he had no regrets. And then he added that Pres. Grant had told him that after the Saints had rejected his pleas regarding Prohibition, the heavens closed to him, and revelation ceased for a time.

My sincere hope is that I never contribute to a reduction in the flow of revelation to the prophets of God.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

ksfisher · August 21, 2014

We are getting a little better at drunk driving which is a plus.

It almost sounds like you're saying that the drunks are better drivers now than they used to be.

The Nehor · August 21, 2014

So five years before prohibition, but well after the prohibition movement had begun to gain steam. I don't think this changes my point that repeal didn't water down the Word of Wisdom.

No, but it did make breaking it easier and the Prophet was very very annoyed with the Saints for helping to repeal it.

"One of the saddest days in all of Utah's history was when the people, including the Latter-day Saints (for it could not have been done without them), rejected the counsel and urging of the Lord's prophet, Heber J. Grant, and repealed Prohibition long years ago--yet many of those voters had sung numerous times, 'We Thank Thee, O God, For A Prophet.'" - Spencer W. Kimball

And it seems more modern prophets are also not okay with it.

The Nehor · August 21, 2014

It almost sounds like you're saying that the drunks are better drivers now than they used to be.

Scarily enough there is some evidence suggesting we actually are but the improvement is marginal.

toon · August 22, 2014

No, but it did make breaking it easier and the Prophet was very very annoyed with the Saints for helping to repeal it.

"One of the saddest days in all of Utah's history was when the people, including the Latter-day Saints (for it could not have been done without them), rejected the counsel and urging of the Lord's prophet, Heber J. Grant, and repealed Prohibition long years ago--yet many of those voters had sung numerous times, 'We Thank Thee, O God, For A Prophet.'" - Spencer W. Kimball

And it seems more modern prophets are also not okay with it.

Sure, it's more difficult to break a commandment when it's also against they law and you can be prosecuted for it. But we're talking about watering down doctrine, not enforcing compliance.

The fact that multiple jurisdictions now recognize gay marriage doesn't water down Church doctrine on marriage. And I don't believe recognizing a distinction between what is recognized civilly and what the Church will recognize, support, and honor waters down any doctrine. I don't even think that supporting that distinction waters down doctrine.

The Nehor · August 22, 2014

Sure, it's more difficult to break a commandment when it's also against they law and you can be prosecuted for it. But we're talking about watering down doctrine, not enforcing compliance.

The fact that multiple jurisdictions now recognize gay marriage doesn't water down Church doctrine on marriage. And I don't believe recognizing a distinction between what is recognized civilly and what the Church will recognize, support, and honor waters down any doctrine. I don't even think that supporting that distinction waters down doctrine.

Again, it does not water down the doctrine. We could not water down the doctrine if we banned marriage between humans altogether and insisted that legally everyone can only marry into the Plant Kingdom to increase genetic variation.

Our current circumstance does result in more people agitating for the Church to allow same-sex marriage and being unhappy it does not. It does make homosexual relationships more available. It almost certainly increases sin and all those pesky judgments the Proclamation on the Family warns about. I rate it as a bad thing. If we legalize it we legalize it but there will be consequences and I helped in my small way against legalization because I will have to live with some of them. Some will be good and some will be bad. I am guessing more bad then good sadly.

Daniel2 · August 22, 2014

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.

"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.

By way of clarification, in 2010, the church itself corrected a conference talk by Elder Nelson in which, from the pulpit, he had labeled the Family Proclamation to be "a revelation." In the printed version of the talk in the Ensign and online archives, the word "revelation" was replaced with the word "guide":

Guide is the new Revelation
http://www.clobberblog.com/?p=3988
Posted on October 8, 2010 by Ms. Jack
There’s some discussion happening over at 9M concerning changes to Boyd K. Packer’s most recent General Conference talk. While I find the changes to his (probable) statements on homosexuality fascinating, what I’m actually curious about are the changes concerning the Family Proclamation.
In his spoken talk, Elder Packer stated concerning the Family Proclamation:
Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies, according to the definition, as a revelation, and it would do well that the members of the church [to?] read and follow.
The written talk now reads:
Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng#2
So the Family Proclamation has been downgraded from a “revelation” to a “guide.” While a “revelation” can certainly be a “guide,” I don’t think the switch can be written off as insignificant on a technicality like that. If the Family Proclamation was truly considered a “revelation,” it makes little sense to alter that description in the printed version.

The demotion from "it qualifies as a revelation" to "it's a guide that members should follow" is significant...

Sign In

Jana Riess Directly, Openly And Publicly Opposes Elder Nelson

Recommended Posts

Nevo

toon

Rock_N_Roll

Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

The Nehor

toon

toon

The Nehor

toon

ksfisher

ksfisher

The Nehor

toon

Hamba Tuhan

ksfisher

The Nehor

The Nehor

toon

The Nehor

Daniel2

Robert F. Smith

Hamba Tuhan

Robert F. Smith

SmileyMcGee

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse